Administration Proposals on Climate Change and Energy Independence

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLI- MATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDE- PENDENCE

(110–44)

HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 11 AND 16, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLI- MATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDE- PENDENCE

(110–44)

HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 11 and 16, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35–926 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY MCNERNEY, California VACANCY

(II)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DORIS O. MATSUI, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey BRIAN HIGGINS, New York GARY G. MILLER, California RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania HEATH SHULER, North Carolina BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio Columbia CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan BOB FILNER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts (Ex Officio) GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)

(III)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON CONTENTS Page Proceedings of: May 11, 2007 ...... 1 May 16, 2007 ...... 182 MAY 11, 2007 Summary of Subject Matter ...... viii TESTIMONY Ayers, Stephen T., AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol and Deputy Architect/ Chief Operating Officer, United States Congress ...... 41 Beard, Daniel P., Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of Representa- tives ...... 41 Doan, Hon. Lurita Alexis, Administrator, U.S. General Services Administra- tion ...... 6 Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...... 6 Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Trans- portation ...... 6 Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul, Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil Works, Department of the Army ...... 6 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania ...... 54 Arcuri, Hon. Michael A., of New York ...... 55 Brown Jr., Hon. Henry E., of South Carolina ...... 57 Carney, Hon. Christopher P., of Pennsylvania ...... 70 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois ...... 74 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...... 76 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ...... 78 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ...... 80 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Ayers, Stephen T...... 89 Beard, Daniel P...... 100 Doan, Hon. Lurita A...... 105 Johnson, Hon. Stephen L...... 134 Peters, Hon. Mary E...... 155 Woodley, Jr., Hon. John Paul ...... 162 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Brown Jr., Hon. Henry E., of South Carolina: ‘‘The Big Freeze,’’ Time, January 31, 1977 ...... 59 ‘‘The Cooling World,’’ Newsweek, April 28, 1975 ...... 67 ‘‘Green Groups Dismayed as Flights Soar to Record High,’’ The Independent (UK), May 9, 2007 ...... 68 Ayers, Stephen T., AIA, Acting Architect of the Capitol and Deputy Architect/ Chief Operating Officer, United States Congress, response to question by Rep. Oberstar ...... 98 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Tennessee Valley Authority, Tom D. Kilgore, President and CEO, written statement ...... 174 Alliance to Save Energy, list of board and associates ...... 178

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON VI Page MAY 16, 2007 Summary of Subject Matter ...... xxii TESTIMONY Altman, Richard L., Executive Director, Commercial Aircraft Alternate Fuels Initiative ...... 245 Brandt, Alf W., Principal Consultant, Committee on Water, Parks and Wild- life, State of California Assembly ...... 252 Clarke, Andy D. Executive Director, League of American Bicyclists ...... 186 Cohen, Greg, President & CEO, American Highway Users Alliance ...... 186 Fitzgerald, Steve, Chief Engineer, Harris County Flood Control District, Houston, Texas, on Behalf of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies ...... 252 Hall, Edward, General Manager of Engine Technology, General Electric ...... 186 Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads ...... 186 Harris, Jeff, Vice President for Programs, Alliance to Save Energy ...... 222 Lash, Jonathan, President, World Resources Institute ...... 186 May, Jim, President and CEO, Air Transport Association ...... 245 McQuade, Michael, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology, United Technologies Corporation ...... 245 Millar, William W., President, American Public Transportation Association .... 186 O’Brien, Chris, Chairman, Solar Energy Industries Association ...... 222 Principato, Greg, President, Airport Council International—North America .... 245 Prindle, William, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy Effi- cient Economy ...... 22 Rader, Tom, President, Colorado Railcar ...... 186 Richter, Brian, Director, Global Freshwater Initiative, The Nature Conser- vancy ...... 252 Stewart, R.K., FAIA, President, The American Institute of Architects ...... 222 Strout, Linda, Deputy CEO, Port of Seattle, on Behalf of The American Association of Port Authorities ...... 252 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania ...... 277 Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ...... 278 Carney, Hon. Christopher P., of Pennsylvania ...... 280 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...... 283 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ...... 288 Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin ...... 291 Walz, Hon. Timothy J., of Minnesota ...... 297 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Altman, Richard L...... 298 Brandt, Alf W...... 313 Clarke, Andy ...... 326 Cohen, Gregory M...... 329 Fitzgerald, Steve ...... 335 Galloway, Gerald E...... 344 Hall, Edward ...... 350 Hamberger, Edward R...... 359 Harris, Jeffrey ...... 366 Lash, Jonathan ...... 375 May, James C...... 386 McQuade, J. Michael ...... 395 Millar, William W...... 402 O’Brien, Christopher ...... 408 Principato, Greg ...... 427 Prindle, William ...... 433 Rader, Thomas G...... 454 Richter, Brian ...... 458 Stewart, R.K...... 470 Strout, Linda ...... 482

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON VII Page SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Hamberger, Edward, President, Association of American Railroads: Response to question from Rep. Oberstar ...... 215 Response to question from Rep. Oberstar ...... 217 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Airbus North America, Allan McArtor, Chairman, written statement ...... 489

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON viii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.001 ix

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.002 x

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.003 xi

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.004 xii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.005 xiii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.006 xiv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.007 xv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.008 xvi

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.009 xvii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.010 xviii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.011 xix

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.012 xx

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.013 xxi

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.014 xxii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.015 xxiii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.016 xxiv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.017 xxv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.018 xxvi

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.019 xxvii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.020 xxviii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.021 xxix

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.022 xxx

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.023 xxxi

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.024 xxxii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.025 xxxiii

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.026 xxxiv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.027 xxxv

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.028 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON HEARING ON ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDE- PENDENCE

Friday, May 11, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James Ober- star [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a gentle gavel this morning; I don’t want to fray the sensitivities of my colleagues who were in session. All of us were in session until 1:30 this morning. There isn’t anyone here who has gotten more than five hours of sleep, unless they were cheating on the Floor last night. I thank our witnesses, but I especially thank our colleagues who have braved the lack of sleep and the late night session to be here this morning. The issue before us today is the first of two hearings, but there likely will be others over the period of this Congress, on global climate change and on the energy independence issue, which reminds me that I still have on my bookshelves the energy independence program of the Nixon Administration, a volume that I pored through last night that has some very valid and thoughtful recommendations of 35 years ago that are valid today. Our economy is so dependent on hydrocarbons that we have a special responsibility in this Committee to examine the reach, the breadth, the effect, of all that we do in transportation, since it does account for 60 percent of our energy consumption in America. Over 60 percent of all energy is consumed in heating water: water to make steam for power plants; heating water in your radiators of your cars or trucks; heating water for use at home. We don’t think about this very often, but it is a function that can be displaced. Hydrocarbons can be displaced by solar power. This is an effort which we launched in this Committee at the outset of the session by passing legislation to retrofit or, I called it at the time, futurefit the Department of Energy with photovoltaic cells. This is also an initiative that, actually, I launched 30 years earlier, in 1977, with a bill to retrofit all Federal office buildings with photovoltaic cells. Unfortunately, that program was sidetracked by an election, the election of 1980, in which President Reagan came in and abolished the whole alternative energy program. (1)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 2 ‘‘But for as long as Europeans can remember, the frozen bastions of the north have hovered on the margins of their world a fearsome unknown realm nurturing fantastic tales of terrible beasts and gro- tesque landscapes. The boreal oceans were a source of piercing winds, vicious storms, and unimaginably cold winters with the ability to kill. At first, only a few Irish monks and the hearty Norse dared sail to the fringes of the ice. King Harald Hardradi of Nor- way and England is said to explore the expanse of the northern ocean with a fleet of ships in about 1040 A.D., beyond the limits of the land to a point so far north he reached pack ice three meters thick. He wrote, ‘‘There lay before our eyes at length the darksome bounds of a failing world.’’ It is a remarkable book. The Little Ice Age describes the vast os- cillations of weather and of, more importantly, climate. The author writes, ‘‘Complex interactions between the atmosphere and the ocean govern Europe’s climate. A constantly changing pressure gra- dient reigns over the North Atlantic and much of Europe’s climate. Its influence as pervasive in the north as the celebrated southern oscillation of the Southwestern Pacific that governs El Nin˜ os and tropical weather. The North Atlantic oscillation is a seesaw of atmospheric pressure between a persistent high over the Azores and an equally prevalent low over Iceland.’’ It seems like an arcane piece of scientific information until you understand that the North Atlantic oscillation governs the position and strength of the North Atlantic storm track and the rain that fails on Europe, especially during winter. The extreme swings of the North Atlantic oscillation are part of the complex atmospheric- ocean dynamics of the North Atlantic that include sea surface temperature anomalies, the strength of the gulf stream, atmospheric wave structure, and the distribution of sea ice and icebergs. These interactions are poorly understood, but there seems little doubt that many of the swings in the North Atlantic oscillation result from changes in sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. That continued over a period of 1,000 years, until, in the early 1300s there was dramatic swing from a warm period in which agriculture thrived, in which the icebergs disappeared, in which the Norse were able to explore the North Atlantic all the way to shores of the North American continent. Then the climate swung. That cycle of warm weather ended with a reversal of the North Atlantic oscillation, which brought a bone-chilling winter that immobilized shipping over a wide area, where thousands more perished from hunger and disease. The subtle climate of earlier years gave way to unpredictable wild weather, marked by warm and very dry summers in the 1320s and 1330s, and a notable increase in storminess and wind strength in the English Channel and the North Sea. The moist mild westerlies that nourished Europe turned off rapidly as the North Atlantic oscillation moved from one extreme to the other. The little ice age had begun. That little ice age devastated Eu- rope: famine, plague, and destruction of agriculture, people, and cattle. We are in a different age today, and it is our task to better understand what the forces are and what the consequences are. The international geophysical year, the exploration of the Greenland ice

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 3 cap, the exploration of Antarctica, the measurements that have been taken of over two miles of ice on the Greenland ice cap by dif- fering teams of scientists show that today there is more carbon in the atmosphere than any time in the last 420,000 years. If we had no carbon in the atmosphere, the land would be uninhabitable; we would have the little ice age, only much greater, much more powerful. But too much carbon in the atmosphere causes the dramatic swings and shifts of power and shift that we are experiencing today. There is much written about the atmosphere, but little about the ocean, the great ocean circulating current or the great ocean conveyor belt. It is the most powerful of all ocean currents. This massive force studied by Dr. Wallace Broker of Columbia University has been present for the last 100,000 years, but only definitively understood in the last 15 or 20. The magnitude of the great ocean circulating current can be best described by a Swedish scientist, Sverdrup, who measured it. He can best compare the flow of all the rivers of the world in one day, or all the rainfall that touches the earth, which is measured in trillions of gallons, in one day. That is a Sverdrup unit. The great ocean circulating current has the force of 20 Sverdrup units, meaning 20 million cubic meters a second. It is over five miles wide, it is over two to three miles deep in the ocean; starts in the North Atlantic, in the Arctic, and moves with vast amounts of salt down through the North Atlantic, the South Atlantic, into the Pacific, through the Philippines, moves through South Africa, and then back up and gives off its warmer temperature to shield Northern Europe. The great ocean circulating current is beginning to weaken because of the melting of the polar ice cap and the dilu- tion of the saltiness of the North Atlantic and the Arctic ocean water that has the moderating effect on the Pacific and the moderating effect on Northern Europe. We don’t know for sure what will happen because of melting of the polar cap, the weakening of the conveyor belt. But we do know that when that has happened in the past, that the climate system has shut down and an ice age began. We may be in the midst of a warming climate, but we may also be on the edge of the next ice age. The consequences for health are extraordinary. The female orphalese mosquito dies at 63 degrees temperature or below. There is a belt five degrees north and five degrees south of the equator in which that mosquito thrives. A million people a year die of malaria; 200 million are afflicted by malaria. I was one of them when I lived in Haiti. I contracted malignant tertian malaria. You either die or, if you live, you don’t get it again. That belt is now expanding to 10 degrees north and 10 degrees south of the equator. That means that in the next five years we will see 400 million to 500 million people afflicted by malaria and 2 million or more deaths. Similarly, in the tropics, a bonebreak fever is carried by a vector which dies out at 1500 feet of altitude, where the temperature is roughly in the mid-60s. Two hundred thousand people a year die of bonebreak fever. I never contracted it, but I saw people who did. It’s a horrible disease. That disease is now at 3,000 feet of altitude

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 4 in the tropics. Nearly a half million people may die of bonebreak fever. If we don’t understand the consequences of global climate change on the earth, the water, the rain, including the lack of rain, and on increasing moisture, then we can surely pay attention to the health consequences of global climate change and begin to do something about it. The Administration has proposed a number of steps which our witnesses today are going to spell out in very thoughtful and well presented testimony. I read this extensively last night, since we had plenty of time, and I look forward to their testimony. Mr. OBERSTAR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida. Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, and good morning, as we try to re- coup from last night’s marathon. Nice to see the smiling faces of Secretary Peters; Mr. Johnson, our EPA Administrator, and Ms. Stone. Thank you for your great job at GSA. And what is it, Colonel Woodley? Assistant Secretary Woodley, great. Welcome, from the Department of Army. Look forward to all of your testimony. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on global warming. In fact, in February I was beginning to wonder whether we were really actually having global warming. February was just as cold as could be. I had a $900 heating bill, Ms. Norton, which is the highest I have ever had in the District, and I go back to Florida and I tell people it was so cold in Washington, I tell my constituents you could actually see Members of Congress with their hands in their own pockets, which was quite a spectacle. But, again, I don’t claim to be an expert. It is simple to look at where some of the greenhouse gases and some of our problems with adding to the heating of the planet come from. I got that little chart up there. You can’t see it very well; they didn’t do a good job, but it just shows power generation. Thir- ty-three percent greenhouse gases come from power generation. And just to state the problem in the realm in which we have some say, transportation, which is automobile, trucks, airplanes, accounts for another 27 percent. If you add that up, it is about 60 percent of the emissions problems. It is strange the way we do some of these things. We are in a comfortable room here. Actually, the power generated for the air conditioning is coming from a plant which should have been changed out, but it is run by coal which comes from West Virginia, which Senator Byrd has insisted we keep no matter whether it produces the highest source of emissions or not. I know we have put some scrubbers and some other thing on our particular plant. I wanted to change out a light bulb the other day and I just asked staff to pull one out back here. These are the kinds of light bulbs we use in the Capitol. But I wanted to change out a light bulb and we are back to where we were, I think, about 12 years ago. I had to fill out a form, one person had to come up and actually look at the light bulb, then two people came up, one to present the light bulb, another one with a form, and one to install it. These are the more energy fluorescent light bulbs. So we are doing them one at a time. So whether it is power generation or electric, changing out to more efficient fuels, the Capitol isn’t a very good example. We will

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 5 hear from I guess the second panel—we have got the acting architect—on what we are doing here. We know what, I guess, some of the problems are, and then we have to look at the solutions and what our policy is. Again, it is not a very good policy, whether it is the U.S. Capitol. As far as power generation, I have identified the problem of solving the problem, it is Congress. In France, 75 percent of their power is generated by nuclear; and old nuclear, we are not talking about the technology we have today. Again, our Federal policy keeps us from doing things. I have learned a little bit about light water pebble reactors, which have almost no meltdown possibility, that can be used, even in residential areas. South Africa is one of the countries. Even Iran and North Korea are looking for—of course, part of the use they claim is for power generation, peaceful power generation. But, again, our policy is not what it should be. And nuclear is emissions- free. We also have natural gas. I am the only Florida Member to vote to drill in the Everglades back in my days in the legislature, and we take oil out of the Everglades even today safely, but we can do it in the Gulf. You can’t do it with a Federal policy that when one year says we are going to be 100 miles off, the next year we say 120 miles off, the next year we say 200 miles off. We jerk around those who produce this. Natural gas, low emissions can be produced safely, and we have an abundance of it. That is not the only answer; solar and wind are also viable solutions, hydro. But it is our Federal policy. Cafe standards. We are going to have to increase our cafe standards. Now, I am a conservative Republican and supporter of industry, but we have got to set the policy and increase the mileage that our cars are getting. So we are standing in the way with outdated Fed- eral policy. Power permitting is another problem. Then, finally, mass transit and transit. First of all, we are just not going to solve this with shifting the biofuels. I know that the agriculture folks are having a heyday, they had one last night, although that is not all said and done. But biofuels, if we use the entire U.S. corn crop, would only provide 3.7 percent of our transportation fuel needs. So it is not an answer. It also uses a lot of energy in its production. So we do need to look at other ways of powering vehicles, whether it is automobiles, trucks, or aircraft. We need to be doing more with Secretary Peters in looking at alternative fuels for aircraft. Very soon, the Europeans will probably impose a tax on us because airplanes do produce a lot of emissions, significant emissions. Finally, again, in the area of moving people efficiently and freight efficiently, railroads can move a ton of freight more than 400 miles on one gallon of fuel, and rail emits 6 to 12 times fewer pollutants than other modes of transportation. But, again, we don’t have in place a system. We move freight at an average of 21 miles an hour in the United States. Then, moving people, we move people long distance by a Soviet system that is called Amtrak. It is out of date and it is an impediment to us actually moving lots of people by long distance. As far

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 6 as high-speed rail, it has closed the door to high-speed rail development in the United States, made it impossible. We look at what is going on around the world. I visited, last August, China. Maglev, next generation technology, China. Even Romania is privatizing its rail. But not the United States, because of our policy and some special interests who want to make certain that we do not have an alternative means of transportation that can be fuel-efficient, that can protect the environment, less emissions. But there is only one thing standing in our way, our Federal policy. I am pleased to yield back. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his statement and his observations. I guess I broke union rules. I just went and changed the light bulb on my own; I put it in and didn’t ask them permission to do it. Mr. MICA. I hope they file a complaint against you. Mr. OBERSTAR. File a complaint, then. Get the IBEW after me. I am quite sure that all other Members have erudite statements about global climate change, and those will all be entered into the record so that we may proceed forthwith to our panel. Secretary Peters, thank you very much for being with us. We appreciate your presentation, which I read at length last night. You are the first. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS, SEC- RETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE STEPHEN JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., AS- SISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OF CIVIL WORKS, DE- PARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND THE HONORABLE LURITA ALEXIS DOAN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to come before you today to testify on climate change and energy independence. In my testimony today, I would like to explore with you how this Com- mittee and the Department of Transportation can work together on shaping transportation infrastructure to enhance energy security and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most importantly, we need to find ways to improve the efficiency of our existing transportation system and to direct limited investment capital to where it is most needed and can make the largest difference. This is the fundamental rationale for the Congestion Initiative and Next Generation Finance Reform Initiative for aviation. Both endeavors can be powerful tools for reducing petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as saving time and money for travelers. While the Congestion Initiative involves a number of different elements, today I would like to focus on three of those elements most relevant to saving fuel and curbing emissions. In December, with the help of this Committee, the Department issued a request for proposals for metropolitan areas to enter into what we call Urban Partnership Agreements, or UPAs, with the agency. As an

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 7 urban partner, a metropolitan area will commit to implementing a comprehensive strategy to respond to urban congestion, including congestion pricing demonstrations, enhanced transit services, increased use of telecommuting, and advanced technology deployment. In exchange, the Department will support its partners with available resources using current budget authority, as well as regulatory flexibility and expertise. The heart of the Urban Partnership Agreement is a congestion pricing format that, done right, can reduce congestion and save drivers substantial amounts of time and fuel. Pricing can also incentivize mass transit use and foster high speed, reliable bus rapid transit service. It can improve in-service fuel economy while reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions by cutting out the stop-and-go movement and allowing vehicles to operate at closer to optimal speeds. Congestion pricing has also been in the news lately, most recently with the proposal by New York City Michael Bloomberg, to implement a cordon pricing program in which drivers would pay a fee to enter downtown Manhattan during the workday. Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is the kind of bold thinking that leaders across the Country need to embrace if we hope to win the battle against traffic congestion and climate change. We are also working to improve aviation congestion. The Federal Aviation Administration has saved millions of gallons of jet fuel and over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past two years by implementing reduced vertical separation minimums, permitting aircraft to fly in U.S. airspace and operate at more efficient altitudes. The FAA has achieved further improvements in system performance through the related reforms of the Area Navi- gation System and Required Navigation Procedures, both of which increase the efficiency with which we use our airspace and with which airplanes operate. If we want to reduce jet fuel consumption and aircraft emissions without discouraging air travel, we must transform our aviation system. We need a reauthorization bill passed by Congress that provides for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. I commend the Committee for holding today’s hearing. We all share an enormous responsibility of ensuring that future generations can experience the freedom of efficient and vital American transportation systems. I look forward to answering your question, and thank you for entering my full statement in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We will have some questions later on. Now we have Mr. Johnson, Stephen Johnson, Administrator, En- vironmental Protection Agency. Appreciate your being here. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Mica, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about climate change and energy security. As we continue to work to evaluate our obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Admin- istration will continue moving forward, both domestically and internationally, to address the serious challenge of global climate change.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 8 In keeping with the agency’s commitment to address the Su- preme Court’s ruling expeditiously and responsibly, we recently signed the formal notice that starts the public process for considering the California waiver petition process. We will hold public hearings on May the 22nd and May the 30th. In 2002, President Bush committed to cut U.S. greenhouse intensity, that is, the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, by 18 percent through the year 2012, a goal that we are on target to meet. According to EPA data reported to the United Na- tions Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.S. greenhouse gas intensity declined by 1.9 percent in 2003, by 2.4 percent in 2004, and another 2.4 percent in 2005. Put another way, from 2004 to 2005, the U.S. economy increased by 3.2 percent while greenhouse gas emissions increased by only 0.8 percent. Under the President’s leadership, our Nation is making significant progress in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, from 2000 to 2004, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel consumption grew by 1.7 percent while our economy expanded by nearly 10 percent. This percentage increase was lower than that was achieved by Japan, Canada, the original 15 countries of the European Union, India, and China. IEA data also show that during this time the United States reduced its carbon dioxide intensity by 7.2 percent. This is better, for example, than Canada, Japan, or even the EU 15. I would also note that the U.S. is on track to meet, and possibly exceed, the President’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. By contrast, only two of the original EU 15 countries in the Kyoto Protocol are on target to meet their Kyoto targets. Over the last six years, this Administration has invested more than any other nation in the world, $37 billion, in a comprehensive climate change agenda. EPA climate change programs include a wide array of domestic and international partnerships which rely on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas intensity, spur new investments, and remove barriers to the introduction of clean- er technologies. I would be happy to speak in greater detail about EPA’s many climate partnership programs that include the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Energy Star, the SmartWay Transport Partnership, the Methane to Mar- kets Partnership. The President’s efforts are also focusing on strengthening energy security. In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President challenged the Nation to address our growing reliance on oil. He called for reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years, while doing so in a way that keeps America’s economy growing and protects our environment. This 20-in-10 plan includes a proposed requirement for 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel in 2017, building upon EPA’s current renewable fuel standard. Another focus of EPA is the development of risk management strategies to ensure carbon dioxide injection and long-term geologic storage are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. We have determined that underground injection of carbon dioxide is subject to the Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which regulates injection activities to

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 9 protect current and future sources of drinking water. EPA has developed UIC permitting guidance that recommends treatment of injection wells associated with research and development projects as experimental technology wells. Our goal is to provide guidance that facilitates permits, while encouraging environmentally responsible injection activities. Mr. Chairman, I am also proud to say on September 1st, 2006, we, EPA, became the first Federal agency to achieve 100 percent green power. EPA is also a Federal Government leader in the use of green buildings, having eight major new facilities that are or will be silver or gold certified under the U.S. Green Building Council rating system. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Before I take questions, I would ask that my full written statement be submitted for the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the full statement will be in the record. The complete statement of all witnesses, as statements of all Members, will be included in the record. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Honor- able John Woodley, Jr. Thank you very much for being here. Mr. WOODLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today to discuss how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program is addressing global climate change. I have a detailed statement I have submitted and, with your permission, will summarize it here. Over the last century, the Corps of Engineers, along with other Federal agencies, has helped develop this Nation’s water resources. We are constantly improving our ability to manage those resources, including measures to address water-related issues that are arising due to changing weather patterns and climate change. The Corps’ flood and storm damage reduction mission directly involves understanding and responding to extremes of weather variability and long-term trends in climate. Significant changes in either weather patterns, or in climate, can affect our ability to supply water from our Nation’s multipurpose reservoirs to 55 million municipal and industrial consumers, to facilitate safe and reliable waterborne transport on our Nation’s inland waterways, and to produce nearly 25 percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power. It could also affect our ability to restore and sustain aquatic ecosystems and endan- gered and threatened species. While the Corps of Engineers does not have the mission to perform climate data collection, the Corps has been involved in climate change impact studies since 1979. The Corps has participated in a number of workshops with its Federal and State agency partners in efforts to evaluate the development of technical and scientific methods for incorporating climate change information into fore- casts, flood and drought frequency analyses, and planning evaluation approaches for new projects, as well as for existing ones. Two of the Corps’ significant activities, hydroelectric power and inland navigation, relate directly to energy independence and climate change, and all of our mission areas could be affected by climate change. Hydroelectric power helps make us less dependent on foreign energy sources. The Corps is the single largest producer of hydroelectric power energy in the United States. It operates and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 10 maintains 75 multiple purpose hydropower projects, generating about 78 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The Corps accounts for about 24 percent of the Nation’s hydroelectric power capacity and about 3 percent of the total electric power capacity of the United States. This output makes the Corps the fourth largest electric utility in the United States, one which uses no imported fuel and emits no greenhouse gases. The Corps maintains the Nation’s inland waterway navigation system, which is an important part of the national transportation system. Waterborne transportation is often capable of moving com- modities and products more efficiently than they could be moved over land, potentially reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Because all of our missions can be affected by significant shifts in weather or climate, it is important to the Corps to account for these possibilities in our project planning and operation. To that end, the Corps is pursuing an expanded use of risk-based planning. The risk-based planning process considers uncertainties such as the effects of climate change evaluated through multiple possible scenarios of future environmental conditions. The ongoing work in the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Study is an example of the application of this process. There are many avenues through which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program can help address the difficult scientific, technical, and operational issues raised by the uncertainty associated with climate change and its potential impacts on water resource management. We have the necessary authorities to conduct a broad program of necessary first steps that are part of a longer-term proactive adaptive management strategy. The Corps of Engineers is a leader in innovative, yet practical cost-effective approaches and is working to incorporate potential climate change impacts in the planning and management of our key water-based infrastructure. We are well positioned to respond to the Nation’s needs now and in the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Excellent. Thank you very much for your presentation. The Corps has within its reach the ability to make big impacts on our energy picture. Our next witness may have an even bigger impact on energy, Lurita Doan, Administrator, GSA. Ms. DOAN. Good morning, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee. I am Lurita Doan, Adminis- trator of GSA. GSA has an extraordinary commitment to energy- saving initiatives and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss GSA’s endeavors here today. A critical part of GSA’s mission is to provide responsible choices that help our client agencies meet their environmental obligations. Our offerings include the construction and leasing of energy-efficient buildings, the procurement of renewable utility services, environmentally friendly telework and other alternative workplace ar- rangements, and a selection of the latest alternative fuel vehicles and a wide range of environmentally preferable office products. From the space and services provided by our Public Building Service to the products and services provided by our Federal Acqui- sition Service, I am proud of the leadership GSA demonstrates and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 11 the assistance we provide to the Federal community to meet or exceed the targets set by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the targets set by President Bush’s new Environmental Execu- tive Order. I am also proud that GSA’s efforts to achieve energy efficiency through good practices, new technologies, innovations, and plain old common sense have helped reduce our energy usage as well as our operating costs. Today I would like to discuss GSA’s leadership in energy-efficient green buildings, GSA’s offerings of environmentally responsible products and services, and GSA’s government- wide telework initiative, including our centers that relieve Federal employees from daily traffic snarls and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GSA’s achievements and initiatives in these areas are detailed in my formal statement already submitted to the Committee. For now, I will focus on a few highlights. Through PBS, our Public Building Service, for instance, GSA has an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the Federal Govern- ment by example and demonstrate how we can reduce energy consumption by integrating energy efficiency into building designs, while still creating superior workplaces, and GSA is doing just that. For example, GSA operates its buildings at costs that are 5 percent below comparable buildings in the private sector, and GSA pays 12 percent less for its utilities because we can drive costs down through the leverage buying power of the entire Federal Gov- ernment. Similarly, our Federal Acquisition Service offers agencies a wide array of energy saving services and products, including alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps most Americans don’t know this, but GSA is one of the Nation’s largest purchasers of alternative fuel vehicles. With over 100 contractors on GSA schedules, agencies can find a host of services that help them audit their current usage, that properly meter their buildings, and evaluate alternative energy options. On a third front, GSA is a co-lead agency for Federal telework and established a no-cost trial of the GSA telework centers. Based on data from our 14 centers, we estimate that telework at these centers annually save nearly 2.8 million travel miles, which in turn saves 115,000 gallons of fuel and avoids 2.3 million pounds of emissions. Sustainable design, meanwhile, is a holistic approach to con- structing, modernizing, and operating buildings that seek to balance costs, environmental, social, and human benefits with func- tional needs of our customer agencies. GSA uses the U.S. Green Building Council LEED certification in the design of new construction and GSA is a leader in sustainable design and has earned a LEED rating for 19 buildings to date, with 60 more planned. Mr. Chairman, whether it is sophisticated lighting systems, wind power, or telework, GSA is fully committed to achieving and ex- ceeding the goals of the Energy Policy Act and the President’s Ex- ecutive Order. As Administrator, I feel blessed that GSA has a tal- ented, creative, and innovative workforce. GSA has some of the resources to help our client agencies and our Nation become more

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 12 conscientious stewards of our air, land, and water but, truthfully, more are needed. I also want to help folks in the business infrastructure sector understand that if you build it, GSA will come. We need more energy infrastructure, whether it is wind power, hydroelectric, photovoltaic, more E85 stations, more bio products, we need it. If you build it, we will come. I would be happy now to respond to any questions from you or Members of the Committee. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Ms. Doan. Mr. Mica tells me that you are from New Orleans originally. Ms. DOAN. I am indeed. Mr. OBERSTAR. That is my wife’s home. Well, Secretary Peters, it occurred to me, as I read your statement last night and listened to you again this morning, you quoted, with much approval, Mayor Bloomberg and his cordon pricing program, and also quoted him asking what options do we have. Should we continue to have wasted time, lost business, higher prices, or should we charge a modest fee to encourage people to take mass transit? We encountered that issue in the safety round in the TEA-21 and in SAFETEA-LU on two scores, one on seat belt usage—which the Governor of New Jersey should have paid attention to—and, second, on alcohol and driving. And in the complex negotiations within the Committee, and then between our Committee and the Senate, we settled on incentives rather than penalties. You seem to be endorsing the mayor’s support for a penalty, rather than provide incentives for people to use transit. Wouldn’t an incentive payment of some sort, a subsidy of transit, be a better approach, comparable to what we did in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU on seat belt and on .08 alcohol? Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do believe in incentives and, as you discussed, during the negotiations for SAFETEA- LU we did arrive at incentives and they have worked very well, especially in the seat belt law area, extremely good progress. The truth is that in New York City, as well as here in Wash- ington, D.C. and in many other areas, transit benefits are given or incentives are provided to employees to use transit. In fact, at our building, I believe as well as many other buildings here in the U.S. Government headquarters, we charge employees who choose to drive and park, but we give them benefits, transit benefits authorized by Congress if they use transit. That is the case in New York City as well with many of the employers, and yet Midtown Man- hattan is still very, very congested. Mayor Bloomberg has said that you pay a price. Either you pay a price for coming into the city, as he has suggested, or you pay a price in lost time and lost productivity. Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me contrast that with Denver, under Mayor Wellington Webb, where he said we don’t want your pollution in the center city; leave your car outside. We will give you a ride free on our Circulator System in the center of the city. Keep the pollution out and your experience in our city will be a much happier one.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 13 In Portland, in the center of the city they have a circulator system, a trolley that you ride free, get on and off as many times as you wish. When you get beyond a certain zone, then you pay. In the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, municipalities under 200,000 population can use their transit grants for capital account as well as for operating comp, but those above 200,000 are not allowed to do that by current law. Would you support changing the law to allow large municipalities to use funds for operating assistance in order to encourage greater transit use? Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, during the first three years of operation, in most cases, CMAQ funds, for example, can be used for operation. That has been—— Mr. OBERSTAR. But not for those above 200,000. Secretary PETERS. Not for those above 200,000, sir. I would support maximum flexibility for State and local governments. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. That is excellent. I appreciate that. It is nice to have a straightforward answer. Not that you don’t, but it is all too often we have an Administration witness, they don’t know what OMB is going to say. That is a good candid, straightforward answer. I appreciate it. Excellent. Mr. Johnson, let me find my notes. Here we are. The Supreme Court, on April 2nd, said that EPA has to take into account CO2 as an air pollutant and that you do have the ability to set emission standards for motor vehicles. It also said there is no conflict between setting CO2 standards to protect public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act, and that there is no conflict between that and the Department of Transportation setting fuel economy standards. What does EPA intend to do now in the aftermath of the Su- preme Court decision? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as you point out, the decision that the Su- preme Court made on April the 2nd does present a series of complex issues, the one you mentioned being one of them. We are currently evaluating what the Supreme Court said, considering those kind of issues, the intersection between the Clean Air Act and De- partment of Transportation’s activities. We are considering all options. We are moving expeditiously. This is an important issue. But we are also moving responsibly. Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, there is an opportunity now, with that decision, and I encourage EPA to move ahead vigorously with it. Secretary Woodley, some years ago—goodness, 20 plus years ago—this Committee directed the Corps to evaluate the potential for low-head hydro application on streams other than those where we have the major projects, and then come back and report to Con- gress on those 5 kW and above. Are you familiar with that report? Mr. WOODLEY. It must have been before my time, Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you update—yes, go ahead. Mr. WOODLEY. It must have been before my time. Mr. OBERSTAR. It was, yes. Mr. WOODLEY. I can tell you—— Mr. OBERSTAR. Probably when you were still in college. [Laughter.]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 14

Mr. WOODLEY. Although 25 years is a long time to spend evaluating anything, even for the Corps of Engineers, it would not be unprecedented. Let me respond seriously, though, that I have seen low-head applications in place, particularly in New England, where they are being vigorously pursued. I think that there is a great potential there for development that would require very little infrastructure and would present substantial opportunities for more additional hydroelectric power from our facilities, using water that—— Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we are going to get together with you too and with the Chief of Engineers and revisit the issue and harness the Corps’ ability to deliver real engineering results, as it does. I have such great admiration for the Corps and all of its work, but in your statement you talk about adaptive management—that the Nation’s water resource infrastructure can be adapted to address subtle changes and trends. Now, I don’t want to be picky, but we have not seen much subtle change in a long time. I have a compilation over the last 20 years of the costs of disaster relief expenditures by FEMA and by the private insurance sector, and it adds up to $35 billion from 1980 to 2000, and $115 billion by the private sector insurance companies, and if you look at the progression, if you go back to 1980, FEMA disaster relief was in the range of $850 million. It fluctuates, it goes down, it goes up, but then from 1990 on it is $2 billion, $2.5 billion, $4.3 billion, $3.6 billion, $4.3 billion, $4.4 billion. The private sector keeps going up. There is a progression. And that doesn’t include the $27 billion- plus of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We are seeing a steady progression, if you just measure it in cost, of an increase of storms of powerful effect on people, on communities, and on our total public works infrastructure. And then you go on to say, generally, however, we have formulated our projects to address storms that are more likely to occur. I think that the gentleman from Louisiana to my left, Dr. Boustany, would say we are way passed evaluating things that are likely to occur. We need to protect against storms of a magnitude that we haven’t yet imag- ined. Now, Ms. Doan, I followed with great interest your many discussions of pilot projects, building modernizations, and projects that are nearby in Suitland, Maryland, or as far away as San Francisco. There is a highly commendable record of accomplishment in GSA, but GSA is the landlord of 367 million square feet of civilian office space, and the electricity bill is $5,800,000,000 a year. We have to do a whole lot more than we are doing now, and we intend to give GSA the authority and the encouragement and the incentive to accelerate this initiative. If we can get a bill through the Senate that we passed in the House to convert the Department of Energy, which should be the symbol for America of conversion to photovoltaics, then we can carry that pilot all the way through the rest of the Federal Govern- ment and save an enormous amount of cost to the taxpayer, and of CO2 emissions to the environment. Are you ready to get on board with that? Ms. DOAN. GSA strongly supports photovoltaic efforts as a way of providing alternative energy. In fact, we have a very strong

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 15 track record in that area. We have worked very hard and we just started another effort just last month in the Denver Federal Cen- ter. In addition to that, we think that it makes an enormous amount of economic sense. We also want to expand our efforts a little bit further into our land border ports of entry program on the roofs where it makes sense, where we have enormous amounts of solar power available to us. In fact, in Waltham, Massachusetts, we have an integrated solar roof where 45 to 50 percent of the total building supplies—the solar roof on top of it provides for their electricity needs. So we are very much in support of these initiatives. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Secretary Peters, we have all followed the increased ethanol usage with a great deal of interest. Granted, we know there are limitations agriculturally with some of the technology and even pipelines for distribution, so there are going to be problems that we will face with these limitations. I am curious to know—what is the Department doing with regard to aviation fuel alternatives and biofuels and the like? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, that is a very good question. In fact, aviation has increased their fuel efficiency by 33 percent in about the last 10 years, so they certainly have stepped up to do a lot of things. Currently, both Boeing and GE are making forays into alternative fuels for aviation, and they are also beginning, at airports, to look at the opportunities for ground-based equipment to be alternatively fueled, perhaps electrified vehicles, so that they aren’t burning fuel. We are also looking at ways when jets are taxiing, after they have landed and gotten off the active taxiway, and whether there are ways to move that jet with a lower cost technology, such as a nose wheel motor, that would prevent them from running those jet engines while they are on the ground. So there are a number of things underway for doing that, as well as fuel options. As I mentioned, both Boeing and GE are looking very heavily into fuel options for aviation as well. Aviation is one of those forms of transportation where they absolutely are looking very hard to conserve fuel whenever they can because it is such a large part of their expenses. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. What will be the U.S. policy if the EU imposes an aviation fuel emissions tax? Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, we are very opposed to that. We are very opposed to a unilateral measure such as EU is considering for aviation, and feel very strongly that the whole issue of emissions and global warming, climate change are global issues, not issues that are specific to the European Union. I have also talked with my counterparts in China. They are opposed, as well as many other countries also. So we do intend to push back very hard against the EU on this unilateral measure. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield for just a moment. Mr. BOUSTANY. Certainly. Yes.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 16

Mr. OBERSTAR. I assure the gentleman further time. Our Committee did conduct an extensive session in Belgium with the European Commission, with the minister of transport, Euro- pean Parliamentary Members of their transport Committee, that included an extensive discussion of the emissions trading regime for aviation that the European community is moving forward on, and their goal is to implement an emissions trading scheme for aviation by 2011, 2012. Their goal was also to impose it on the United States in our airspace. We made it very clear on a bipartisan basis that this is our sov- ereignty and that we will deal with it. We also told Europe that we were 10 years ahead of them on noise. We put in place a noise reduction rule in 1990, legislation that I initiated as Chair then of the Aviation Subcommittee, and Europe didn’t come along until 10 years afterward. We want credit for what the United States did. We will deal with our issue in our sovereign airspace and Europe can deal with yours in European sovereign airspace. We ought to harmonize it for the benefit of the world, but we have to bring the rest of the world along with us. I thank the gentleman for his time. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, in March of 2007, you convened a climate change working group within the EPA’s Office of Water, and specifically in your written testimony you mentioned mitigation, adaptation, and research. Can you go into greater detail as to what this working group will assess, and how do you think water programs and water quality infrastructure can mitigate the release of greenhouse gases? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, sir. The reason why we convened this work group is that there are a number of issues that we must address, as we look at global climate change and its potential impacts, and one of those is on sea level rise and the concern for our oceans and our coastal waterways, what that means for not only the environment, but also where we get our water for drinking water, as well as wastewater treatment. So we convened a group inside the agency to take a very close look at the tools under the Clean Water Act and how we could use those tools and how we can use those tools to help to mitigate or to better understand, but mainly to make sure that we are able to address any changes that may occur from greenhouse gas emissions. So we have started that effort not only inside the agency, but with our Federal partners and, in some cases, as we have looked at some of our precious natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay with our State partners there as well. Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. Secretary Woodley, I think you mentioned in your verbal testimony that you did not need additional authorities, and I guess I would like to pursue that a little further. Do you see that you need any additional authority as you look at your project studies, and specifically do you need authorities in addition to Section 707, Sec- tion 729, Section 731 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986? Mr. WOODLEY. No, sir. Thank you for the question. We believe that the authorities that we are currently operating under are suf-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 17 ficiently broad to allow us to take into account climate change issues as they apply both within our planning processes and within our operational measures within the program. Mr. BOUSTANY. So you are looking at climate change when you look at the impact on flood, storm, and drought risk in the U.S., also the impact on hurricane activity intensity, storm surge, sea rise level, associated flooding? These are all things with your current authorities that you are able to address? Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay. And will incorporating these types of climate change analyses increase the cost of conducting studies? In other words, are non-Federal project sponsors who currently pay 50 percent of all study costs willing to bear this increased cost, and has there been some dialogue with the non-Federal cost share sponsors? Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that our cost share sponsors are interested in the best planning process that we can achieve. They are interested in a planning process that is comprehensive and that takes into account all the risks that their populations will face. So we have not had—I am certainly not aware of any difficulties or issues that have been raised with our partners in that regard. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Woodley. Ms. Doan, is GSA doing anything to reduce Government facilities’ dependence on the existing energy grid? Ms. DOAN. Yes. GSA is working very hard to generate independence from the grid. As I mentioned earlier, we are making enormous efforts in different types of energy. We have made efforts to use wind power, hydroelectric power, of course, photovoltaic or solar power, but in addition to that, we will be removing some of our energy from the grid. In fact, many areas where we are generating power, we then return energy to the grid. Our new effort that we have begun at the Denver Federal Center will do exactly that. In addition, at the FDA here in Maryland we have a heating plant that does exactly that, and it is cogeneration of power. Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman and the witnesses. Now, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this important and timely hearing. If I could just do a little demonstration for a moment. Behind this curtain is sunlight. That is sunlight, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Ms. NORTON. I do that demonstration because I sat in a hearing recently, and everybody who came into the room said, oh, it is freezing in here, it is freezing in here. And, of course, I looked around and we were all closeted in these curtains, and I recognized that there is an AV. You know, at home, when you look at tele- vision, you don’t close down the sunlight. It does seem to me that a lot of what the Federal Government has to be doing has to begin at home, and I do want to know—I want somebody to find out when the idea began that we had to

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 18 close up all of the curtains and depend on these things here as we preach to the Country what they are supposed to be doing. Maybe it is the best thing to do, but I am not sure it is. I think anybody who either shuts out sunlight or uses a great deal of electricity has the burden of demonstrating why they are doing so. That is why I applaud the speaker, who has taken a lead for the Capitol complex in light bulbs, where we are supposed to immediately convert 2,000 desk lamps and, within six months, 10,000. I applaud it because, frankly, I don’t think the problem with the Federal Government is leading by example; I think it is much more serious than that, because it is typical, Mr. Chairman, to underesti- mate the effect the Federal Government could have on changing energy policy just by what it does itself within its own operations. We are the big kahuna, and if you want to drive down the cost of all of this, the Federal Government leads in doing it and then others follow. Our ability to affect the marketplace is incalculable, almost, here. Ms. Peters and I have had a running dispute that I want to just cite when it comes to leading by example, and perhaps to contrast that with Administrator Doan, because I think GSA has had decades, before climate change became much of an issue, of leadership, rather muted leadership, not preaching it, but certainly trying to practice more of it than I think is known. On the other hand, just to give a perfect example, because I read your testimony, Ms. Peters, about some of the things you want to do. Some of those things sound to me to be very progressively moving in the direction of encouraging local jurisdictions. It seems small, but there is limited money. One of them, I noted in your testimony you want to fix bottlenecks in our transportation systems, include the efficiency of our existing road system, and direct limited investment capital where it is most needed. You are about to be in the center of the storm at the Department of Transportation. This Committee, for 20 years, worked to get the Department of Transportation a new building. Now you have a new building close to South Capital Street, in one of the great entry portals to the city. It is great all right. It is so great that you can’t get in it or out of it. Well, there is a lot of vacant land around it and the District is about to build a new Nationals baseball stadium, and the District is hustling with all kinds of changes in roads. The Federal Government gave, to its credit, because this is where the Navy Yard is, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Capitol, $20 million to expand the Navy Yard subway. We are trying to use every church lot to have people park, rather than have them bring their cars anywhere close. The people who own the stadium are going to shuttle people in. The Department of Transportation has a brand new, brand new building and a brand new garage that is empty, or almost empty. If they want to use part of it, that is all right, but most of the people have gone home by the time the night games, which are when most night games. A creative proposal came forward from the people who own the stadium, who said that there are certain people that they know will

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 19 drive, and those are the people who have those season tickets. They paid a lot for them. And they offered to vet those people in a way that no Federal employee is vetted; in a way that none of us or our staff is vetted. I was able to get the Navy Yard, which is along the same stretch of land, to agree that anybody who has a DOD pass around his neck—and that can be a contractor—can park there if they are going to a night game at the ballpark. Talk to the GSA and to the credit of the GSA, to the credit of the owner who runs the Department, who built this structure, the owner now of the structure, all of them said, given all the vetting you are talking about, it seems to be the highest and best use of the garage at night. Some revenue will come to the Federal Gov- ernment; the cars, instead of being stretched along South Capital and M Street, which is the worst bottleneck in the city, those cars will go into the garage. I don’t want to say, Mr. Chairman, because it is very elaborate what they will do. These are people who are willing to anything because it is a very small group of people that we are talking about, the people who can afford those tickets, and they are willing to go through that. When we sat down with the security people, we recognized that they wouldn’t want to take that responsibility. So we had talked to Ms. Peters’ predecessor; she seemed to be open to this, to see the common sense value of this. But when it came to the Secretary, despite all she has had to say here this morning, she would rather see the bottleneck around her own Department of Transportation than see the garage used at night by people who have been vetted at the highest use. They used the Federal Government’s highest use vetting in order to come forward with a plan. So the whole notion of the Administration, Madam Secretary, proposing in this year’s budget $175 million to expand capacity and improve operations along heavily congested interstate travel and trade corridors does not seem consistent. All I am saying is the De- partment of Transportation has a burden not only of leading by example, but of explaining, if we are not able to do something about that congestion when that ballpark opens on April, what the De- partment has done. The Department of Transportation must explain what it has done to ameliorate the very congestion that you claim it is your mission to ameliorate throughout the Country. You need to start right where you live, in the Department of Transpor- tation. I want to say that we will be holding a series of hearings, Mr. Chairman, on energy conservation in Federal real estate, because we own real estate throughout the Country and, by ourselves, could have a significant effect on energy matters. But we are not going to start with those forms of conservation that cost money. We are going to start with ordinary, old fashioned conservation like dim- ming lights after certain hours, making officials in Federal buildings responsible for that policy, keeping temperatures down, and allowing air conditioning and heating not to reflect the kind of temperature you find in movie theaters, when you come in and you are cold, or a hearing room and you are cold, but keeping those temperatures down. I believe that we have underestimated what the Federal Govern- ment itself can do, not by pilot projects. And the testimony here

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 20 has been full of pilot projects and small things. I do want to say GSA has, for decades, been building in such—with some cost, building into construction and into requirements some important energy-efficient saving matters, but I take my time, Mr. Chairman, to say that the Department of Transportation—and I am here to hear any response she has to make—has left me to my own devices. And I tell you, as a Member of Congress, I am not going to sit here and watch the Department of Transportation become the center, the vortex of the congestion of which I speak. If I have been left to my remedies as a Member of Congress, I have my remedies, and I intend to take them. Secretary PETERS. Madam, would you like me to respond? Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, but the Chair will entertain the Secretary’s response. Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Congresswoman, indeed, the new DOT building is a green building. We worked very closely with GSA to ensure that that building is not only energy efficient, but takes maximum opportunity to use natural light, as opposed to having to put artificial lighting in the building. The issue with which you and I had a discussion has to do with using a single-entrance underground parking garage, as you mentioned, for season ticketholders. Madam Congresswoman, I evaluated that request very, very carefully. The exterior of the building has been hardened against terrorist attacks, as should be done in buildings built for the Government in a post-9/11 environment. The parking lot has not been hardened. I consulted security experts in this field and, to a person, they told me that it constituted too great a risk for the building and the employees of the building to allow parking of non-government employees in there. I very carefully evaluated that request—— Ms. NORTON. Did you talk about how these people will have been vetted at a level beyond what Government employees have been vetted? Secretary PETERS. Madam Congresswoman, I did. My responsibility at the end of the day is to ensure the safety and security of our employees and the building for which I have responsibility. I consulted safety experts. I have made a decision, and the decision is not one that does not look carefully at the option that you put forward. Mr. OBERSTAR. The matter is one of great importance. It carries over from that of energy efficiency to one of security, and it is a matter that can be explored in further inquiries. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick comment, then a few questions. Recently, I read this book called Human Options. It is about a 30 year old book by Norman Cousins, a journalist and author well respected from the 1940s through the early 1980s. There is a quote in that book that says, ‘‘history is a vast early warning system.’’ So taking that quote into this framework, we can use both an understanding, being knowledgeable about political history with these issues and how they have been dealt with and how successful they have been, and both certainly from the early discussions here about

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 21 climate change, an understand of the geologic history of the planet is not unimportant for each of you to have a clear understanding of, as far as where do we go with climate change, where do we go with greenhouse gases with emissions from automobiles or power plants, or even where we park when we go to a baseball game. So I would hope that all of you collaborate and integrate your ideas and your ingenuity, whether it is NOAA or USGS or the De- partment of Transportation, the Corps of Engineers, GSA, EPA, etc., because this is much bigger than one agency can handle. It is much bigger than one entity in the Government can handle. We have heard about silos and stovepipes and all of those things, and we have run out of time to deal with it in any way effectively. So I appreciate your time here and your efforts that you are all making in the individual agencies and departments that you represent, but it is so important, even with the remaining time in this Admin- istration, for each of you to collaborate as much as is possible. The first question I have is to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, how do you see the California new vehicle emission law affecting the rest of the Country and affecting the rest of the Country on how people purchase vehicles? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, California has a petition before the agency now, which we are evaluating. We have two public comment periods, actually hearings, one here in Washington, D.C. on May the 22nd and on May the 30th one in Sacramento, California; and those are the very questions that we are asking as part of the petition process, is asking for public comment on the California petition requesting a waiver—— Mr. GILCHREST. Just on another level, though, do you see what California is doing as a very positive opportunity that the Nation can take advantage of, along with, I don’t know, the several other States involved in that as well? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are looking at the petition and we will await the public comments that we get before we comment on the merits or not of the petition. Again, the issue of global climate change is serious, and, as you pointed out, sir, it is one that requires really every one, from each of us as an individual, to departments, the Federal Government, to business and global. Mr. GILCHREST. On that same line of thinking, as you respond to Massachusetts v. EPA with regard to the vehicles and other source of greenhouse gas emissions, how are you responding to that Supreme Court decision, in a collaborative fashion; an idea, well, greenhouse gases are not the same as coal particulates, they are not the same as mercury, but when we see the potential of sea level rise and the potential for various mosquitoes moving from one latitude to another latitude, there is an effect of that accelerated introduction of greenhouse gases that we haven’t seen in geologic history. So if you could just give me some idea of how you are dealing with that issue. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are in active discussions with all the departments, particularly the Department of Transportation, given the nature of Massachusetts v. EPA, and there are many complex issues, not only that present themselves focusing on the transportation sector, but also, then, what are the ramifications for other sectors given the Supreme Court decision. So it is a complex issue.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 22 We are very actively working at all levels within the Administra- tion to address this. Mr. GILCHREST. Is this something that you think the Administra- tion or EPA can handle under the existing structure of, let’s say, the Clean Air Act, or is there some accommodation that needs to be made, some adjustment, or anything that Congress needs to do? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly, the President wants Congress to act on his 20-in-10 proposal of 20 percent reduction on our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years, the two components being the alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons and, of course, then, revis- ing the cafe standard. So there is something, yes, that can be done legislatively. With regard to the Clean Air Act, it is a broad, sweep- ing authority and we are currently evaluating it in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. Mr. GILCHREST. You think a cap-and-trade program similar to, but certainly more broad than, the one that helped significantly reduce acid rain, sulfur dioxide—or the matter in which we got lead out of gasoline or what we have done with CFCs—do you think that can play a role in this? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly, there are a lot of tools, ranging from voluntary programs, partnership programs, to cap-and-trade programs, to taxes, to a variety of other incentive kinds of programs that can all work to address the issue. At the moment, our focus, certainly at EPA, is looking at the Supreme Court decision and what does that mean for motor vehicles. Mr. GILCHREST. Just a last question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Do you think we have the time to deal with greenhouse gas emissions based on the IPCC recommendation of trying to stay below 450 or 500 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere with a voluntary program by 2050? Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I think that there are a variety of tools that we have, both domestically as well as globally. As you point out, it is not only just the United States, it is not just the European Union, but also developing countries. Certainly—— Mr. GILCHREST. I think, though, the U.S. has enormous influence around the world. Mr. JOHNSON. In fact—— Mr. GILCHREST. And when the U.S. moves, people respond. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in fact, as a Nation, as I mentioned in my testimony, we, as a Nation, have spent, since 2001, $37 billion on research, on technology, and even some tax incentives, which is more than any other country in the world. So we are taking this issue very, very seriously. We have made progress. We clearly have more to do. If I could, Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that came up about what individuals can do. Energy Star products, you know, that little blue star that is on light bulbs or on computers, last year, by Americans buying Energy Star products, they saved $14 billion— that is with a ‘‘B,’’ billion dollars—in energy costs. And if you want to put that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, that saved greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 25 million automobiles, just by people buying products that have that Energy Star label, refrig- erators, computers, light bulbs.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 23 So clearly an opportunity, whether you are an individual, whether you are a Federal facility or commercial facility, here in the United States and around the world, we see people making a difference. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman, who has now departed, for his questions and for your responses; it is right on. In that spirit, there is a company in my district that manufac- tures an electric car that you can run for a whole year on what it costs you to run your refrigerator for a whole year. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for also holding this hearing. It is important that we look in all areas, especially those we see in transportation, to see how much energy is used. So we are looking at climate change, but also, just in general, trying to save energy and become more energy independent in our Country. It is very important to look at this. I wanted to say to Chairwoman Norton that I don’t know how long it took me before I actually realized that there were windows behind the curtains in these hearing rooms. I just saw it hanging there, I just thought they were decoration covering the wall, but I finally found out there were actually windows back there. I chose my office based on facing south. I won’t have an office unless it faces towards the sun, so that tells you a little bit about where I am looking. I want to ask Administrator Doan a question to first start. You had said that the GSA has an opportunity and responsibility to lead the Federal Government by example, and Chairwoman Norton also talked about the responsibility that the Federal Government has. It is not just the example that helps, but it has an actual impact on the market. I introduced a bill recently, a bipartisan bill, the Bright Energy Savings Act, which directs the GSA to replace light bulbs. When- ever a light bulb is replaced—not to take all of them out right away and change them, but whenever a light bulb needs to be replaced, doing so with a high efficiency light bulb. Right now, most likely, this would be a compact fluorescent bulb, although later this year there is a new generation of halogen lights that will be coming to the market. But the CFLs, right now use 75 percent less energy than the incandescent light bulbs. This results in a greenhouse gas emission reduction, reduction in energy used, and also it saves money. The estimates are about $43 over the lifetime of a bulb, for one bulb, and I have been told that there are about 3 million light bulbs in GSA buildings. So I wanted to ask you mentioned a few things about what had been done by GSA in terms of lighting, although I wasn’t exactly sure. You talked about light fixtures. I was wondering if there has been any effort to put in high efficiency bulbs in GSA buildings and what exactly has been done in this regard to lighting. Ms. DOAN. GSA has actually employed several different strategies. One of the most basic, of course, is actually applying daylight harvesting strategies, such as interior and exterior lighting shelves that capture and redistribute the daylight throughout the build-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 24 ings; working at limiting or eliminating incandescent lamps; reducing light wattages below the current standards. For example, the old practice was 4 to 7 watts per square foot, and the new standard is 0.9 watts per square foot. Providing sky- lights in our buildings, wherever possible, so that we can bring in the natural light; limiting the window areas; providing exterior shading; installing blinds; locating closed office and conference space away from windows and placing open office areas by perim- eter windows; using light-reflective colors. In addition to that, we have daylight sensing automatic controls for lighting and daylight zones; technologies that split ambient lighting, task lighting for maximum efficiency; occupancy sensors in non-regulatory spaces; high-efficiency glazing. This is actually a good news story for us. But most light bulbs, just to go back to that, are already high-efficiency light bulbs within our buildings. We work very closely with agencies to look at their desk lamps, for example, and starting back in 1990, GSA did a massive retrofit of all of our Federal buildings to address exactly the challenges that you just brought up, to try to increase that energy efficiency. In addition, I would like to say we have some incredibly innovative new buildings. For example, the San Francisco Federal Build- ing has a daylight harvesting technique that actually captures the daylight and it channels it back into the middle of the building. It is in a tower that is only 60 feet wide, and because of that it now is available to provide daylight to all the occupants. So by combining the efficiencies with having switched out and retrofitted light bulbs, as well as some inherent efficiencies in the new kinds of design and construction, I think we are doing quite a bit in this area; I actually have like 10 pages of lists that I could go through. Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, it is great to hear that all this is being done. I would like you to get to me more specifics on, first of all—because I am hoping that—we have 65 cosponsors on this bill right now. I am hoping that we can do something on this, but I would like to have more specifics on how many bulbs out there have been replaced, how many have not been replaced, just so we have an idea about that, because I haven’t been able to get information along those lines. So if you could get that for us and also a little bit more specifics. It is great to hear all these things are doing done, but there are so many GSA buildings. It would be good to know more specifically how widespread this has been done. So if you can get those to me so that we on the Committee could see that, I would appreciate that. Ms. DOAN. I would be happy to provide that information, and I will tell you I think you will be delighted when you read it because it truly is a good news story that GSA is putting forward. Thank you. Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson. Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me start by asking for unanimous consent to insert in the record words from our colleague, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, who could not attend this hearing.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 25

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the Subcommittee Chair’s statement will be included in the record. Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. She states in here that under current law there are two highway programs which were started in the 1991 ISTEA law that she believes do support local efforts to combat greenhouse gases: Transportation Enhancements and the Conges- tion Mitigation and Air Quality Programs. Those programs, dollar for dollar, as your own data show, do more to help the Nation curb harmful emissions by providing alternatives to solo driving, whether it is expanding transit or car- pooling, improving traffic signalization, promoting innovative demand management strategies, or making non-motorized travel easier and safer; or the issue that I want to raise today, which is very contentious in Texas at the moment, and that is whether Texas elected officials can proceed to make policy decisions on the construction of highways without interference from the Federal Highway Administration. I have a fairly lengthy statement to make and I have some questions within it, Madam Secretary, and I am going to ask that you respond to the questions that I have in the middle of my statement formally by writing, if you don’t mind, but I have two questions at the end that I would like you to comment on. I would like to refer and also ask, Mr. Chairman, that we put into the record a letter of April 25th, 2007, from the General Coun- sel of Federal Highway Administration in response to enquiries from the Texas Department of Transportation. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. Within this letter, Mr. Rey, who sent the letter, says, ‘‘We urge you to support the spirit of a fair and open competitive process in whatever procurement procedures are adopted.’’ Mr. Rey was referring to legislation in the State of Texas. It is State House Bill 1892 that passed the Texas House and the Senate is now waiting for the governor’s signature. The focus of Mr. Rey’s concern is a highway project, State Highway 121, in the Dallas area. Secretary Peters, I assume that you are in favor of a fair and open and competitive process in procurement. I certainly am. In fact, I would assume that the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Government all are supportive of fair and open competitive procurement processes. I certainly am. Mr. Rey may not be familiar with some of the relative events leading up to this decision in the North Texas Tollway Authority, NTTA, not to bid on State Highway 121 project, so indulge me and let me go through a few paragraphs and tell you all of this. In January 2006, NTTA announced it was preparing to submit a proposal for the State Highway 121 project. Soon after the Texas Transportation Commission unexpectedly began a TxDOT comprehensive development agreement process for two significant projects that NTTA had spent years designing and shepherding through the environmental process. These projects are the extension of the Bush Turnpike and the Southwest Parkway in Ft. Worth. By starting that process, NTTA

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 26 would be precluded by Texas law from carrying out the projects, and this sent an unmistakable message to NTTA concerning the consequences of its attempt to compete on that particular project. It occurred after private companies had complained that they could not and would not compete against NTTA. So Texas set about trying to fix that problem. NTTA did not bid on State Highway 121 because almost an ex- tortion by the Texas Department of Transportation, not out of its own free will. In February, TxDOT awarded a preliminary 50 year concession on this project to Sintra of Spain. Sintra’s price was $2.8 billion. Sensing that Sintra’s bid may not have been in the public interest, there began an effort by State Senator John Carona, Chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, to try to change that process. NTTA responded infor- mally, saying that it could generate $6.3 billion for another region, and it is able to generate so much more because it has such a significantly lower cost than Sintra. I don’t think that you, Madam Secretary, would argue that the original procurement process was a fair and competitive and open process. Clearly, that was not the case. This House Bill 1892 in Texas is their attempt to correct significant mistakes and improper action by TxDOT. It provides an opportunity to NTTA to submit a formal bid on that project. We hope it will become the law and they will have that opportunity. We don’t know what their bid will be, that will be forthcoming in the next week or so, but this process provides an excellent opportunity to test the hypothesis that has been stated so often that it takes on an aura of unquestioned truth, and that is that the private sector can deliver transportation projects faster, better, and cheaper, and can deliver at greater value to the public. Now we can road-test that proposition to see if it is indeed true. If NTTA’s initial estimate turns out to be anywhere close to the formal bid, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars higher than the highest bid from the private firm, then we know that the public sector agencies can compete well against its private sector counterparts. The original hypothesis is more of an article of faith than a proven fact. TxDOT received a letter from Ms. Janice Brown, the Texas Divi- sion Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. In her letter, dated April 24th, she stated that, ‘‘In our view, any arrangement with NTTA would be a government-to-government agreement and we would treat the arrangement as a publicly owned and oper- ated toll facility. Should TxDOT wish to re-compete the CDA after terminating the current CDA procurement process and seek a Fed- eral highway grant loan, we would be forced to closely examine the circumstances of the new competition to ensure it met Federal requirements for fair and open competition.’’ Mr. Chairman, I also ask that this letter be put into the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. LAMPSON. Secretary Peters, is a government-to-government—and I don’t want you to answer this right—— Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to encourage the gentleman to come to his question here.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 27

Mr. LAMPSON. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will do so and put the rest of this into not only a letter to Secretary Peters, but also into our record. This is a critically important problem for our State. There were other letters that were written; there questions asked by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. There has been conflicting information presented back and forth through a course of several letters, and I wanted to put this into the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman asking for the Secretary to respond at this point? Mr. LAMPSON. I will go straight to that right now, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your indulgence. I am confused by some of this. Statements in the letters that have been submitted by Mr. Rey in his May 10th letter seem to run counter, if not directly undercut the position that you have ex- pressed and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s letter that you sent to her, so here are my two questions. Where does this bill, H.B. 1892, supersede Federal highway laws, and can you give me your firm assurance that TxDOT can implement H.B. 1892 in such a way that would not affect Texas’ ability to receive Federal aid highway funds? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I can answer your question, but I cannot give you an absolute. H.B. 1892 can be implemented without violating Federal law if the interpretation and the implementation that the State of Texas takes concerning the general assent clauses are consistent with Federal law. That is the very issue that I addressed in the letter to Senator Hutchison on the 10th of May. The letter on the 10th of May from Mr. Rey to Texas DOT was in response to a different request from them, asking what they would have to do in order to ensure that H.B. 1892 did not violate provisions of law. At the end of the day, same conclusion is there, but the letter that Mr. Rey wrote on May 10th, of course, is a much more lengthy legal interpretation based on specific questions that TxDOT asked. But the bottom line of this issue is this is up to Texas to do this. We feel the discretion to pass this law, to implement this law is the State of Texas and the State of Texas alone. What we want to do through guidance that we have been asked to provide is to ensure that there is not a jeopardy in the use of Federal funds in that process. And if I may speak specifically to the State Highway 121 procurement, as you indicated, once TxDOT started a procurement for a concession agreement on that particular project and then ultimately concluded that procurement process with an award, it is not possible to reopen that process at this time. The State of Texas may decide to cancel and to re-propose that project, but if they want NTTA to propose on that, it would have to be a government- to-government procurement, as opposed to getting private and public sectors bidding against one another in the process. But, again, our only goal here is to ensure that Texas receives the full amount of Federal highway funds that is available to them. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the Secretary for that response. The gentleman has pursued an extensive line of inquiry that goes beyond the scope of the hearing on climate change, and the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 28 gentleman will certainly want to pursue the matter further in another context. Mr. LAMPSON. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Arcuri. Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much for being here. I wish I had more time to chat with you and to draw on your expertise. You are all obviously very knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I just have a short time. I have a couple of questions that are more philosophical in nature. Mr. Johnson, I would like to start with you. I want to qualify this first by saying you will be happy to know that it doesn’t involve EPA. In our district we have a very large brownfield site that had a gasification plant on it. Our local DEC agency is proposing to deal with the PCBs by burning them, which by my understanding is one of the ways it was once dealt with. Our concern is that we are now going to be burning these and adding carbon to the atmosphere. Can you share some insight with us or your thoughts on that? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the first is we are major fans of brownfield sites being restored; I think it is one of the great success stories of the United States and the President’s leadership and congressional support, and we are seeing that literally turning brownfields into greenfields across the United States. So that is excellent. Mr. ARCURI. Well, that is one of our hopes, but our concern is, if you are burning it, are you actually turning it into a greenfield. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the second is that we do have a challenge with certain hazardous wastes, including PCBs, and incineration is one of the effective ways. Of course, we also ensure that that burning complies with all applicable air standards so that the air quality is not impacted. But as you note, the issue of climate change and whether it is waste or fuel are among the issues that we are trying to sort through as we speak, post-Supreme Court, focusing on motor vehicles. Mr. ARCURI. Well, my concern is that they are dealing with the PCBs, but they are totally ignoring the fact that they are putting more carbon into the atmosphere, and the response tends to be, well, that is not really what our concern is, our concern is with the brownfield. And, again, this is not about EPA specifically, but it sort of goes to what we are talking about, the fact that we as a society and a government are not looking at this more in a global way, but in a very limited way. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, again, the focus or the issues of global climate change, there are many sources, as was noted by one of the early slides, that approximately 30 percent of our greenhouse gas comes from transportation; about 40 percent from power generation; and then the remaining 30 percent from a variety of sources, from residential, from agriculture, from commercial buildings and others; and that as we look across the array of those sources, indeed, there are a number of tools that we have in our toolbox to address that, and we are working very expeditiously to sort through that.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 29 But back on the brownfields, again, we are very delighted to see these brownfields across the Country turn into greenfields. It is good for the economy; it is good for the environment. Mr. ARCURI. We are going to need your help on this one. So I think you will be hearing from me again. Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. We would be happy to help. Thanks. Mr. ARCURI. Ms. Doan, just a quick question for you, and it sort of piggy-backs on what Representative Holmes was saying. Just a question. We talk a lot about the market economy and what drives demand. Obviously, many things drive demand, but one of them obviously is, when you are dealing with an agency as large as yours, you can affect demand. I would like to see every new home that is built fitted with solar panels, but we know that is not going to happen for a while because of the expense. Do you think your agency, if it were to require all Federal buildings to be fitted with solar panels, could help to enhance the demand and thereby help to perfect the technology for solar panels, making it more affordable? Ms. DOAN. I think you are right, Congressman. GSA has an enormous ability to drive the industry. Because of the sheer volume that we purchase, we have an ability to influence. On the hand, I think you have to take into effect that legislation sometimes has an almost global effect on an activity, and we have to look at the solar panels as being useful in some areas of our Country, but perhaps not necessarily effective in others. I think you will find that, at least within GSA, we are working enormously hard wherever possible to try to make use of solar power wherever it is possible in our design. For example, on the southern border on our Land Border Ports of Entry Program, we have enormous efforts afoot there because we have so much natural light, sunlight available for so many very hours of the day. As we mentioned, here in Maryland we have several projects, one of which is a huge, huge roof that benefits from the solar power. We have an effort up in Massachusetts where we are doing the same. But I think what we try to do is we try to assess what is the best way to get the most energy efficiency for that particular location within the United States, and we have an enormous team of folks who are committed to the lead standard and who are trying very hard to make sure that we do that. We ourselves have committed, since 2002, to ensuring that each of our new building projects will configure to at least the silver standard with the LEED rating, and we have actually been pretty successful in that. But I think we do need the flexibility of choosing what is the very best possible solution, rather than having it legislated. Mr. ARCURI. I thank the panel very much and I thank the Chair for this hearing. Thank you, sir. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney. Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panel. I was very encouraged by what I heard today. Madam Secretary, I represent Northeast Pennsylvania, and a lot of my folks in the eastern part of the district actually commute into New York everyday, clogging the New Jersey roadways very badly.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 30 In fact, it basically backs up from the Hudson River all the way to the Pennsylvania border on weekday mornings and in the eve- nings, of course. A couple hundred thousand, I think, spill out onto the roads every morning. Is the Administration prepared to handle problems like this through expediting construction of new transit policies, rail in particular? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I think you make an excellent point, and that is the very basis of this congestion initiative that I spoke about earlier, is to look at a very broad range of solutions that can be brought to bear. Certainly, when that traffic is idling— and that happens around our Nation—we waste some 2.3 billion gallons of fuel every year just as a result of that congestion. So we do want to work with communities, as I indicated earlier, to bring a menu of options and have the communities choose those that work best to address their specific needs. Certainly, public transportation is going to be a big part of that. In fact, part of what Mayor Bloomberg has proposed in this congestion pricing proposal that he has put out is he believes that it would generate some $400 million a year that he would like to put in to public transportation to expand public transportation and give people more of those options. Mr. CARNEY. Things like intercity rail, etc.? Secretary PETERS. Correct. Mr. CARNEY. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson, a pretty easy question, I think, but maybe not. When will EPA begin promulgating regulations based on the Mas- sachusetts v. EPA decision? Mr. JOHNSON. That is the million dollar question, sir. As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decision leaves us with a very complex set of issues, and we are expeditiously reviewing those, but we will make an informed and a deliberative decision when we are ready. We understand and certainly have a sense of urgency, given the nature of global climate change, but we are actively talking about all options as the Administration and certainly under the authority of the Clean Air Act and what the Supreme Court said, so stay tuned, sir. Mr. CARNEY. Do you anticipate this before January of 2009? Mr. JOHNSON. Stay tuned, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. CARNEY. We will, certainly. Ms. Doan, first of all, I want to thank you for what you have told us; it is very encouraging. The same information that you are going to provide my colleague, Mr. Lipinski, I would sure like it myself. Thanks very much. In your opinion, do you think GSA has all the authorities it needs to pursue the highest, most efficient energy conservation initiatives? Ms. DOAN. I thin GSA has a lot of resources, but there are some additional resources which, truthfully, we could use the help of Congress on. One of those would actually be to extend the renewable contracting authority. Right now it is only a 10 year window that we are allowed to contract for for energy. If we were allowed to extend that to about 20 years, that would allow the development

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 31 of additional energy sources to occur and we would be able to reap the benefit for our Federal Government clients of that reduced cost of energy. That would be an enormous help. Another thing that would really help us is to have a little bit more flexibility in the prospectus process. As you know, that is a multi-year process to get buildings built, and it would be wonderful if we could be able to revisit the prospectus process and insert into it any sorts of energy efficiencies, newer developments and technologies that would help increase the energy efficiency. And the very last thing would be able to extend the life cycle cost analysis. Right now it is about 25 years. If we could extend it to about 40 years or whatever would be appropriate for the kind of equipment involved. Obviously, if something’s life cycle was 30 years, you wouldn’t need 40 years, but use something appropriate; but up to 40 years, that would help enormously in both cost savings for the Federal Government, but also allow us to offer those energy efficiencies to our Government customers. So any help that you could give us in this area would be greatly appreciated. Mr. CARNEY. I look forward to having conversations with you about that. Ms. DOAN. Well, thank you. Mr. CARNEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. Oh, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. May I just add one other note? That is, we at EPA have an Energy Star program that we are working with our other Federal colleagues on for buildings. That is, we are looking to have buildings be able to achieve an energy start rating, which is the top 25 percent of energy efficiency. There are a number of States, in fact, 30 States plus the District of Columbia, who have signed on and are interested. We have benchmarked 12,000 schools. That is 20 percent of the schools across the United States. Many communities. We have 165 existing Federal buildings that have actually earned the Energy Star label. A number of things that are important about is that the first step is benchmarking what the building is actually doing so that you know what the energy consumption is and what those sources are so that you can then make informed decisions, whether it is changing a light bulb, buying a different computer, buying green power, those kinds of things. So there are a number of activities really across the Federal Government—this happens to be one that we administer at EPA—to help encourage not only from an environmental standpoint, not only from an energy security standpoint, but it also saves us money. Ms. DOAN. Could I just jump in real quickly? I do want to let you know that we do have 120 Energy Star certified rated buildings, but one of the things you could also help us with is highlighting the Energy Star products that we have on our Federal Acquisition Services web site. So whenever you have an opportunity to direct folks attention to that area, that would help also. Mr. CARNEY. Absolutely. Ms. DOAN. Thank you. Mr. CARNEY. I thank the panel. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 32

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his line of inquiry and Ms. Doan for your response on life cycle cost issue. I was not aware that you were limited to a certain number of years in life cycle cost. Is that by regulation or is that by act of Congress? What is the lim- itation under which you are operating? Ms. DOAN. It is by regulation. Mr. OBERSTAR. By regulation. You don’t need legislative authority to go beyond 25 years. Ms. DOAN. It is a little bit of both. Apparently, it is by regulation, but it is set by the national energy policy. Mr. OBERSTAR. But that is not—I have tried for nearly all my service in the Congress to require GSA to move to a life cycle cost basis for construction of buildings not just for energy, but for all purposes, and we have encountered resistance, regardless of the administration. It has nothing to do with is in the White House, but more with who is at OMB. I swear when it comes to those guys at OMB with the green eye shades, if Castro came into power, they would all grow beards and still continue doing the same things they have been doing. They never change. What we have to do is change that culture at OMB. First of all, we need a capital budgeting account for the Federal Government, which our former colleague on this Committee, Bill Klinger, Repub- lican from Pennsylvania, and I worked on for years to establish. Now it is only an annex. The second was life cycle cost analysis on buildings, both for the Government-owned and for the Government- leased. That way you can build in energy efficiencies over 40 years and 50 years, instead of the short-term period that extends only to the lease or its extensions. That doesn’t make any sense at all. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hill. Mr. HALL. Is that Mr. Hall, Mr. Chairman? Mr. OBERSTAR. I am sorry, Mr. Hall. [Laughter.] Mr. HALL. I don’t know everybody here yet; there might actually be a Hill I haven’t met. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all, our illustrious panel members. Just a couple of observations first, before the questions. For the record, I would like to correct the Ranking Member’s statement that nuclear power is emissions-free. It is not. It happens not to emit carbon dioxide. I have a nuclear plant in my district, the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which is currently emitting strontium-90 and tritium into the groundwater into the Hudson River, and I just read today that it has been found in the municipal sewer system of the Town of Bu- chanan. We also had a steam release of tritium a couple weeks ago, as well as many other problems, and it happens to be in the most densely populated part of the Country. Eight percent of the population of the entire United States lives within a 50 mile radius of that plant, and anybody who lives there knows that the evacuation plan is unworkable. Moving on, however, I am very encouraged by all of your reports of the progress that you are making in the plans that you have. Ad- ministrator Johnson, I am glad you are for benchmarks. Seriously, I wanted to ask what progress is being made in terms of the effi-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 33 ciency of the Federal vehicle fleet. How many vehicles that are supposed to be flex vehicles actually get, approximately, in your esti- mation, get to use flex-fuel, given the fact that, in our part of the Country, certainly, there aren’t many pumps that are serving it? Mr. JOHNSON. It is probably a response by both the Adminis- trator and myself. It is true that flex-fuel, the availability, there are approximately 1,100 E85 flex-fuel stations in the United States. That is compared with about 170,000 fueling stations across the United States. So clearly there is still a greater need for having additional fueling stations that carry the E85 fuel. With regard to the number of flex-fuel vehicles in the Federal fleet, I will turn it over to my colleague. Ms. DOAN. I am not actually sure that there is any other agency in the Federal Government that has a greater commitment to alternative fuel vehicle than the General Services Administration. This year alone, GSA will buy 24,000 alternative fuel vehicles, and by the end of 2007 GSA will have almost 70,000 alternative fuel vehicles in its inventory, which will comprise a little under 51 percent of the inventory that we make available to our Federal customers. But in addition to that, we take it one step further because then we recycle it into the private sector. When these vehicles have exceeded their useful life for the Federal Government, we then resell these to the private sector, and this year along we will probably sell about 11,600 of these vehicles, which will then put them into further use. In addition to that, I actually, right after the President made his announcement in January, sent out a request to our fleet and asked them, as an entrepreneur, I love to get ideas, and I said I want every innovative idea you have, I don’t care how wild it is, I don’t care if no one else wanted to look at it; I wanted to see it, for what we can do to try to meet or exceed these requirements, and they came back to me a week or two ago with a proposal. But, truthfully, I am sending it back because it wasn’t aggressive enough; it was not innovative enough. But we have an incredible record here. I will give you the actual statistics for the breakup of the alternative fuel—— Mr. HALL. Maybe you could give them to me in writing, because I only have a minute left of my time. Ms. DOAN. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. HALL. No, it is okay. But I have a couple of questions that I would love to get the information. Ms. DOAN. Okay. I would be happy to follow up in writing on that. Mr. HALL. Thank you. Secretary Peters, I wanted to ask you, given the concerns with energy dependence and the growing effects of climate change, why does the Administration propose to cut guarantee transit funding by more than $300 million fiscal year 2008 and eliminate the use of CMAQ funding for new start operations? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, let me address the last question first. In terms of CMAQ funding for New Starts, there has been some discussion within the agency about the eligibility during the first three years for New Starts. That is an issue that we are ad-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 34 dressing right now, so hopefully we will have that remedied in the near-term future. In terms of transit funding, we funded every project that was ready to go with transit, both in the New Starts and in the Small Starts Program, that was ready to be funded at the time the Presi- dent’s budget was prepared and, in addition, reserved another $72 million for some projects that are still in the pipeline. We do understand that there is a desire to have more funding there, and we simply, as we all did in order to achieve reductions in the overall budget that was necessary to reduce the deficit, had to make some tough decisions, and this was one of those. Mr. HALL. Thank you. Just one last question for everybody. The Vice President, a couple years ago, made a famous statement, that conservation may be a personal virtue, but it is no way to build an energy policy, and you have all spoken very eloquently today about ways that we can use efficiency or conservation, which is the lowest impact way of our obtaining a usable barrel equivalent, or BTU or kilowatt hour, and if we save it, then it has less environmental impact than any way of generating it. So combining that with the fact that the same steps that we would use to reduce global warming are the steps that we would need to reduce asthma and emphysema in our inner cities, especially, to reduce the increased storm frequency—in my district, all five counties I represent are currently under a disaster declaration by the State and the Federal Government because of the nor’easter that just went up the coast. There is now a named storm, Andrea, off the coast for the first time, I think, three weeks before the beginning of hurricane season. We just saw the mile and a half wide tornado that leveled Greensburg, Kansas. These things, no one of them can constitute proof by itself about change in climate, but they are consistent with what these projections show happening if the worst case scenario were to develop in climate change; not to mention the fact that if we take these same steps to prevent global warming, we will also be cutting back on our balance of trade deficit, no longer shipping petro dollars to the Middle East, as Tom Friedman eloquently writes about, and paying for both sides on the war on terror because we are funding the madrasas through the oil dollars, and then having to pay for and give lives and time of our servicemen and women to go and fight against those people that we have been educating, and we will also cut back on the debt because we won’t have to borrow the money to pay for that oil. So, with those things together, would you—and this I guess is a simple question for all of you—consider that it is patriotic, it is not just good energy policy, but that, I mean, I would consider it and I would be curious if you would also consider it to be patriotic to save energy and to use the most energy-efficient vehicles, appliances, and practices that we as individuals all can? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will start because I am at this end of the table. I think it certainly is in the best interest of Ameri- cans to do everything we can to conserve energy. Mr. JOHNSON. Just to add to that, it is the near-term solution that we can make progress in improving energy efficiency. For the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35 intermediate and long-term, technology is the key, whether it be clean coal technology, more cost-effective solar, use of wind, hydroelectric, nuclear, other forms of power. Technology and investment in that technology will deliver us in the future. Mr. WOODLEY. I would just briefly concur in that. We definitely need to place every emphasis we can on conservation. Ms. DOAN. I agree. We lead by example at GSA and I, as the Ad- ministrator, also lead by example, using alternative fuel vehicles for my transportation. But I also think this conservation is good for America, and that can never be a bad thing. Mr. HALL. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful questions and for the panel for their responses. I just want to pick up, Ms. Doan, on your response to Mr. Hall. You said that at a date in the future, which I didn’t write down at the moment, you expect to have 70,000 alternative fuel vehicles. Does that mean that the total GSA—and you said that would be 51 percent—the total fleet is in excess of 140,000 vehicles? Ms. DOAN. Yes, it is, it is about 170,000 vehicles. Mr. OBERSTAR. A hundred seventy thousand. Okay, thank you. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Boustany, has been very patient, waiting for all of our Members on our side to go through their questions, and I appreciate his forbearance. The gentleman has a number of questions and may proceed. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two final questions for Secretary Peters. First of all, how much fuel is wasted each year as a result of highway congestion? Secretary PETERS. Congressman, at a very conservative estimate, 2.3 billion gallons. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me put it another way, if I may intrude on the response. We consume three tanks of gasoline more a year per driver in America in the 68 major metropolitan areas that are the most congested in the Country, three tanks of gasoline more than we would if we could drive at posted highway speeds. That adds up to more than a week a year spent in your car than you would if you could drive at posted highway speeds. That is an enormous waste. That is a $68 billion congestion tax on America. Mr. BOUSTANY. Exactly. I am glad you pointed those things out. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Secretary PETERS. Chairman Oberstar, if I may add, it not only wastes all that fuel, but vehicles burn fuel much less efficiently at that stop and go traffic and lower speeds, so it contributes disproportionately to emissions. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. My final question is may State DOTs do not fully utilize their Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds because the requirements of the program supposedly are stringent. Do you think the States would find the program more attractive if they were able to use some of those funds for highway capacity expansion, particularly if the capacity expansion could be shown to improve air quality?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 36

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, yes. I do believe in the greatest flexibility. You may know that before I had the opportunity and the pleasure to work with all of you, I was the director of the Arizona Department of Transportation. Flexibility is the key, giving State and local governments the ability to use the funds where they can make the biggest difference. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions. I just want to thank the distinguished panel for spending this Friday morning with us. Secretary PETERS. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Doan, on page 11 of your testimony you describe the GSA Federal building in San Francisco using natural ventilation to cool the building, an example of avoiding energy use. Do you know how far back that goes? Ms. DOAN. Excuse me? Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you know how far back that goes in history? Ms. DOAN. No, sir, I do not. Mr. OBERSTAR. To the Romans. They diverted streams to run them through buildings and cool them. Napoleon located his sister on the Isle of La Tortue, off the north coast of Haiti, Colleen, and built a structure for her in the 1790s, 1800, roughly, and diverted a stream to run through the building to cool it for his precious sister, so she wouldn’t have to sweat in the heat of the tropics. That is an old practice. I am glad you are rediscovering it. In 1982, I, with several of our colleagues, traveled to Toronto, Ontario to observe Canada’s energy conservation practices. A major public-private sector building occupied by eight agencies of the pro- vincial government and private sector companies was entirely heat- ed by solar power and entirely cooled by water running through and recirculating through the structure. So it is good that you are rediscovering these practices. You, GSA, are the landlord of 367 million square feet of civilian office space and your testimony was excellent, it describes progress made. If we could fit—futurefit, not retrofit—all those Federal civilian office buildings with photovoltaics or other solar applications, do you have any idea how much of that $5,800,000,000 in annual energy cost we could save the taxpayers of this Country? Ms. DOAN. We could save 30 percent. Mr. OBERSTAR. It is more than that. It is a much greater number than that. And we intend to help you do that in this Committee. We have already moved to retrofit the Department of Energy with the south wall that was constructed with no windows, no doors for the purpose of a solar application, but it has never been done. Now we are going to do that. We passed a bill from this Committee through the House, pending over in the Senate. As soon as they can get through galactic discussions over there, broad public policy issues, come down to sole practical things, they will pass it, and we will take it out of the GSA Building Fund and make that a template for America. We can do that. The cost of photovoltaics is now 25 cents a kilowatt hour. It was 1.75 in 1977, when I authored legislation, and got it enacted, Presi- dent Carter signed into law to invest $175 million a year over three years to retrofit all Federal office buildings with photovoltaics and drive the cost down; use the private sector as the producer, the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 37 Government as the consumer, the public as the beneficiary. The problem was Carter went out and lost the election in 1980, Ronald Reagan came in and abolished the whole alternative energy program. He just dissolved it with his 1981 budget. Well, we are going to turn that around. The cost of photovoltaics on its own has come down to 25 cents a kilowatt hour, and if we implement this program of converting Federal office space to photovoltaics, we can drive it down to below the 7 cents a kilowatt hour average from the investor-owned utilities. Isn’t that a great benefit for the public? Ms. DOAN. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on all the different ways that you and your Committee can help us save and conserve energy for the American people and for our Govern- ment clients. There is enormous opportunity out there and I think this could be a very exciting time for all of us. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I look forward to your cooperation. [Applause.] Mr. OBERSTAR. No outbursts from the audience. This is not a public demonstration. Secretary Peters, we have a great opportunity in transit to make a substantial benefit. We started on this point earlier in my recita- tion of Mayor Bloomberg’s statement about transit. If we had a 10 percent mode shift to transit, we could save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is 550 million barrels a year. Now, what puzzles me is why the Administration’s budget is $300 million short on the transit account for the coming fiscal year. Why is that? Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we did fully fund every transit project that was ready to be funded, as well as reserved $72 million for additional projects. We simply had to make some tough decisions in our budget in order to keep the overall spending level down. But we did not sacrifice any projects that were either ready to go or in the pipeline ready to go. Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay, I appreciate that you didn’t sacrifice any projects that are ready to go, but you didn’t advance the cause by that cutback, and I am badgering our colleagues on the House Ap- propriations Committee to increase the funding. Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I understand that, Mr. Chair- man. Also, there is over $1 billion each year that is flexed from highway spending to transit spending to help build transit projects throughout the United States. Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we have a great deal more that we can do, and if we made that mode shift, which Europe is doing and largely has accomplished, we can save enormous amounts of energy and impact on the environment. Furthermore, if we make an additional mode shift—and I want to compliment the Federal Highway Ad- ministration, it started under your direction there, with bicycling. I want to see us make a start on converting from the hydrocarbon economy to the carbohydrate economy and put people on the seat of a bicycle. Instead of burning 8 barrels of oil a year in your car, burn 86,000 calories a year on the seat of a bicycle. We can do that. Munster, Germany, a little town on the western edge of Ger- many, on the Dutch border, was bombed to smithereens in World

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 38 War II. It has been rebuilt; 250,000 people. Mode share for bicycling, 48 percent. The mayor of Munster rides to work on his bicycle. They have parking for 4,000 bicycles in the center of the city, and they are adding more. They have a 20 foot head start for bicycles at intersections and a 20 second head start on traffic lights for bicycles. We can do that in America. Forty percent of all trips in Denmark are by bicycle; 35 percent of all trips in the Netherlands are by bicycle. Tim Arnade, in the Federal Highway Administration, has led the way wonderfully with the Safe Routes to School Initiative, and I applaud you for your support of that initiative. We have got to change the habits of an entire generation of Americans. We have an opportunity to make a difference in childhood obesity and childhood type 2 diabetes. We can do that through the transportation account and have a beneficial effect on our environment. Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, in fact, many Americans agree with you. Since 1992—— Mr. OBERSTAR. I want to see a little enthusiasm. [Laughter.] Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, only $23 million was spent in bicycle and pedestrian activities. Today, because of flexi- bilities that you and your colleagues have included in laws, that amount has increased to $396 million in fiscal year 2006; and with the Safe Routes to School Program getting underway, it is expected to go even higher in the future. Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me supplement that by saying since I crafted the language for bicycling in ISTEA in 1991, we have invested $3.5 billion in bicycle facilities, built nearly 40,000 lane miles of bicycling facilities across America. Last year, more bicycles were sold in America than automobiles, and that is a good thing for the Country. One last observation. Secretary Woodley, one of the issues that we have dealt with extensively for the Corps of Engineers is watershed management of water resources on a watershed basis. The Corps has sporadically addressed the issue in this way. I want to see the Corps addressing our water resource issues in a systematic way in this climate change era, where we are seeing extraordinary variations; excess water in one area of the Country, deficit in another. The Upper Midwest, the Great Lakes watershed, for example, is going through, now, its fifth year of drought, and, yet, just to the west of us, in the Red River Valley that drains north to the Canadian watershed, they have an excess of water. What direction have you given the Corps to address the issue of watershed management of our resources? Mr. WOODLEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant initiatives that we have taken in this Administration, is to craft and put in place a strategic plan for the Corps of Engineers that stresses the need for watershed based planning. We have embraced initiatives of the Congress to further that aim. It is one of our intents to continue our planning and to enhance our ability to look at wa- tersheds as systems and to, rather than approach not only our planning and construction, but also our operation and maintenance over time, using the watershed as the fundamental basis. That is a different way of thinking. There is a little bit of resistance to it

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 39 in some quarters, but we believe we are making progress on managing our assets and also on having our planning basis using the watershed approach. The real significance of this and the power of it, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a tendency in this Country and the political wis- dom of our forefathers has been to use the waterway and the stream bed as a political boundary. If you go to Mr. Boustany’s part of the world, you will see that the Sabine River is on one side and his district is right there. If he looks across that great river, he will see not only a different district, but a different State of the union, and that is quite common along the Mississippi as well. So our work—— Mr. OBERSTAR. But climate doesn’t respect political boundaries. Mr. WOODLEY. None of the things that we are talking about today respects those political boundaries. So what we need is a comprehensive and collaborative effort to cross those boundaries, to reach across them, and that is what I have charged the Corps of Engineers and what the President has charged the Corps of Engi- neers, in the area of water resource development, flood damage reduction, and storm damage reduction, and water resource development in general to be the catalyst for that collaborative effort. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. We made a start on that in the WRDA bill that the House passed. We are going to expand on it in the future, and there is probably no place in America more reflective of the need for comprehensive watershed management than the wetlands and the shoreline, the coastline along East Texas, all through Louisiana, Mississippi, and on to Alabama. If the gentleman has any comment on that. Mr. BOUSTANY. I would just appreciate Secretary Woodley’s comments, because clearly, as we know down in Louisiana, that is the approach that needs to be taken; otherwise, we are going to continue to have problems as we separate parts of how we manage water, dealing with maybe just transportation issues versus some other aspect of it. Clearly, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall, has another question. Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all my absent colleagues so that I could get one more question in. I was wondering, given the sort of medium and worst case scenario projections of the IPCC, among others, for sea level rise and the fact that we are sitting almost on the banks of the Potomac, which is part of the Chesapeake estuary, which is affected both by sea level and, of course, by tides, and then, in the case of storms, by wave action on top of the tides, Secretary Woodley, has the Corps done, or are you thinking of doing any projections—and I guess this would be for Administrator Doan as well—projections as to the effect on Government buildings and on the D.C. area in general of 15 to 20 to, worst case, 25 foot rise in sea level? I am on the Select Committee on Climate Change, Energy and Dependence, and we heard testimony from insurance and reinsur- ance executives, and former CIA Director Woolsey and others that they consider, depending on how quickly we act and how effectively

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 40 we and other countries that we have no control over, act around the world, we may be looking at, at least the middle case scenario of sea level rise, we might get the best case if we act really fast. Thoughts on that? Mr. WOODLEY. The answer to your question is somewhat complex, but the basic answer is yes, we have. The rest of the answer is a little more complex. The basic answer is that we are examining and seeking to understand the potential scenarios for climate change so that we can apply them in individual cases. The com- plexity arises because the Administration does have a plan for a project to improve the storm damage reduction capacity for the Na- tional Capital area, and I regret to say that we proposed that in our President’s budget for two years running, and in each of those two years it was removed during the congressional process, and we have not proposed it again based on what we understood the guidance that it was not something that the Congress wanted to proceed with. So I would be willing, if anyone is interested, to continue that discussion. So the answer to your question, like the answer to most questions in the civil works program, the answer to your question is yes and no. Mr. JOHNSON. Just to add, there is a forthcoming report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program this fall, late winter that is actually looking at the impacts and the vulnerability of our coastal wetlands and impacts of global climate change. So that is something. NOAA is leading the charge. Actually, there are going to be some public hearings I think beginning in the next couple months. So on the coastal wetland issue, that vulnerability assessment is well underway. Ms. DOAN. And at GSA we have some firsthand experience with this because, after the flooding that we experienced last year in the Metro D.C. area, we realized that what we need to do is look more closely at our portfolio of properties that are in D.C. to see what do we need to do to ensure that what happened at the IRS building would not happen to those particular buildings where we had extensive flooding because of the extraordinary volume of rain that happened during that time frame. So we have begun taking a very close look at our portfolio on this very issue. Mr. HALL. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the panel for their perseverance, for their thoughtful responses, and frank, candid responses to our questions. You have added substantially to our fund of knowledge on the subject, and this will be a continuing dialogue as we go forward. Thank you. The panel is excused. Our second panel includes Acting Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Stephen Ayers, and the Chief Administrative Officer for the House of Representatives, Mr. Daniel Beard. Gentlemen, thank you for being with us. Your statements will be included in the record, and you may proceed with your opening statement. Mr. Beard?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 41

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AND DEP- UTY ARCHITECT/CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, UNITED STATES CONGRESS Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss Speaker Pelosi’s green capital initiative. On March 1st, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the former Chair of the Committee on House Administration directed me to develop a series of preliminary recommendations to reduce environmental impacts associated with the operation of the House office building complexes. As they noted in the letter, the House sought to demonstrate leadership to the Nation by providing environmentally responsible and healthy working environments for our employees. I undertook the review of House operating procedures and made recommendations on April 19th in six general areas. The Speaker has endorsed these recommendations and has written to the architect and myself, directing that we implement them. Before discussing the changes, I would like to just talk briefly about the carbon footprint of the House of Representatives. Using figures that were developed by the Government Account- ability Office and reviewed by Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, we estimate the operation of the House complex is responsible for 91,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in fiscal year 2006. Electricity use accounts for 63 percent of that. The Capitol Power Plant accounts for another 33 percent; and all other business-related uses for the remainder of the carbon dioxide emissions from the House. The Speaker has directed the following changes in the operation of the House. First, she has made a decision to operate the House in a carbon-neutral manner until the earliest possible date, certainly no later than the end of the 110th Congress. By implementing this recommendation, we will be eliminating the 91,000 tons of greenhouse gases identified, which is equivalent of taking 17,200 cars off the road. Second, the purchase of electricity is the largest source of our carbon dioxide emissions for the operation of the House, and to as- sist in achieving our carbon-neutral goal, we will purchase 100 percent of our electrical needs, our electricity needs, which is approximately 103,000 megawatt hours a year, from renewable sources at the earliest possible date. By implementing this recommendation, we will be reducing our carbon footprint by 57,000 tons, or the equivalent of 11,000 cars. Third, the Speaker has directed a series of immediate actions to reduce energy use. These include converting all 12,000 desk lamps in the House office buildings to compact fluorescent bulbs, converting the overhead ceiling lights to high-efficiency lighting and controls at the earliest possible date, and making compact fluorescents available at the House office supply store at cost to House employees. The House is a major purchaser of goods and services and products, and the Speaker has directed us to demonstrate leadership in

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 42 that area as well. We are directed to purchase only office equipment and appliances that are certified through Energy Star, Fed- eral Energy Management, or the electronic product environmental assessment tool. We are directed to give priority to the purchase of adhesives, sealants, paints, and carpets manufactured by companies that offset life cycle contributions of greenhouse gas emissions and we will be finishing the installation, the Architect’s Office will, of an ethanol tank, pump, and related infrastructure for House vehicles. To provide leadership on climate change and sustainability issues, we will hold a Green Expo for House offices, show employees how they can make a contribution to impacting climate change at home or at work, and establish a green building, a revolving to fund energy and water conservation initiatives here on the campus. But even by implementing all of these measures, the House may not operate in a carbon neutral manner. As a result, the Speaker has directed me to recommend a strategy for offsetting our remaining greenhouse gas emissions by either purchasing offset credits or investing directly in mitigation or energy conservation projects. Since the domestic offset market is in its infancy and lacks uniform national standards, I think it is important for the House to approach this issue very carefully. The recommendations in the Speaker’s initiatives are only the first step in the process of creating a green Capitol and more sustainable House operations. My final report is scheduled for release on June 30th, and it will contain additional recommendations and provide a framework for guiding our future activities. In the June 30th report, we will have benchmarks for energy use, goals for reducing energy and carbon and timetables for implementing various changes in our operating conditions as well as measures for reporting progress on a regular basis. Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear and testify this morning. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Beard, an excellent statement. Mr. Ayers. Mr. AYERS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the initiatives and projects the Architect of the Capitol has undertaken over the past several years to conserve energy across the Capitol complex. We appreciate the Congressional leadership’s commitment to reduce energy consumption. As Mr. Beard noted, we recently received direction from the Speaker to complete a number of energy saving initiatives during the 110th Congress. She has our commitment to help achieve the goal of operating the House in a carbon neutral manner. We will also continue to work with Mr. Beard’s office as he final- izes the green Capitol report, and I believe that our individual actions can add up to a tremendous collective effort and can produce significant results in taxpayers’ dollars and conserving our natural resources. On behalf of the Congress, AOC is complying with the requirements and goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the act,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 43 the AOC was required to reduce energy consumption in 2006 by 2 percent. I am pleased to report today that we and the Congress have exceeded that goal of 2 percent by reducing our energy consumption by 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2006. We exceeded this goal through a variety of projects and programs. Just to mention a few, we have initiated a pilot program in the House office buildings to install dimmable ballasts in stair- wells, we are replacing conventional incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and are installing occupancy sensor switches in offices, conference rooms and Committee spaces upon request. In addition, we are installing restroom fixture motion sensors and low flow devices to conserve water. We have upgraded elevators and escalators with energy efficient equipment, and we are installing modern heating and cooling systems, and replacing old inefficient windows with airtight insulated units. We have implemented a policy requiring the purchase or leasing of alternative fuel vehicles and are using energy savings performance contracting to increase building energy efficiencies and upgrade infrastructure, and we have contracted for 3 percent renewable energy in 2007. Active participation by Congressional and other offices in our recycling program has been significant to its success in recent years. Last year, we recycled nearly 2,300 tons of paper, and over the last five years the total tonnage of non-contaminated recyclable wastes has tripled, while revenue from the recycling program is now up over 60 percent. The AOC has initiated two energy savings performance contracts, and we plan to utilize more to achieve a portion of the required energy reductions under the Act. Our goal is to utilize the performance contracting process in all of the major buildings across the Capitol campus. These contracts allow the AOC to initiate energy savings projects with little up-front appropriated funding. To ensure that our efforts save energy and save taxpayer dollars, we are planning to conduct additional energy audits. To date, five have been conducted, and our goal is to conduct audits on all buildings on a five-year rotating schedule. Funds have been requested in our FY 2007 and 2008 budgets to continue this important process. In addition to the energy audits, we have completed studies to identify projects, techniques, and policies which can be implemented to save energy. For example, we are currently evaluating the viability of adding cogeneration capability to the Capitol Power Plant which could provide steam, supplementary electricity, and backup power to the Capitol complex and reduce emissions by more efficiently capturing energy output. As I mentioned earlier, the AOC and Congress were able to achieve a 6.5 percent decrease in energy consumption for FY 2006 despite the added energy load of additional facilities across the Capitol complex. It is important to note that the largest single con- tributor to our energy reduction efforts was the Capitol Power Plant. Between 2003 and 2006, the Plant cut its electrical consumption by 6 percent and fuel energy consumption by over 12 percent as a result of new and improved energy efficiency measures implemented there.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 44 Looking ahead, there are a number of initiatives we plan to implement to ensure we meet or exceed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 of reducing our energy consumption by another 2 percent in fiscal year 2007. We will continue purchasing renewable energy and use energy savings performance contracts. By practicing energy efficiency management, we save taxpayer dollars, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment. Our actions and the actions of Congress are making a difference and have saved energy across the Capitol complex. We agree with the Congress that we need not only to comply with the Energy Act but we need to be leaders in the national effort to save energy. As stewards of the Capitol complex, we will continue to do our part to make this goal a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, both of you, for testimony and for the well documented information submitted to the Com- mittee about the works in progress and the achievements to date of greening the Capitol. We need to pursue this matter with great vigor. I recall, in 1977, debate in the Senate on portions of then Presi- dent Carter’s energy program. In the course of the debate, then Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia held up a thermometer in the Senate chamber—this was February—and said, we can do better. Look at this room. It is overheated. It is over 72 degrees in here. We can put on sweaters, and we can have a lower temperature and save all this energy. The next day, the Senate began and Senator Randolph held his thermometer up and said, look at that. It is now 68 degrees. Think of all the energy we are saving. A reporter asked the Architect of the Capitol, what did you do? He said, well, we can’t modulate the temperature here under the circumstances in which we operate, so we just opened up the outdoor air vents and let more outdoor air into the chamber and cooled it right down. [Laughter.] Mr. OBERSTAR. Senator Randolph was not amused by that answer. I hope you have more ability to modulate. According to the testimony you have submitted, apparently you do. What we have here is a district heating and cooling system, is it not, in the Capitol compound. It is cogeneration. Mr. Ayers, I liked your comment about retrofitting. You can start with windows in this room right here. There is a window right back here. When the wind blows, it whistles in this room, howls, and you can see the curtains move. That is not very efficient. Mr. AYERS. No, sir, it is not. Mr. OBERSTAR. We have asked many times to fix that. People come with caulking guns, and nothing seems to work. So you could make a start on it right here. On a more serious question, is the generation facility for the Capitol able to move? Are the boilers able to accept material other than coal? Can you fuel switch? Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. Mr. OBERSTAR. Use wood chips, for example.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 45

Mr. AYERS. We cannot currently use wood chips. We have seven boilers at the Capitol Power Plant which create steam to heat and humidify the 23 buildings and nearly 15 million square feet of space across the Capitol complex, and of those seven boilers, two of them burn coal. The remaining five burn oil or natural gas. So we are able to modulate between those. Mr. OBERSTAR. There is some fuel switching between oil. You can use natural gas. You have a sufficient supply line to the boilers. Mr. AYERS. We have a sufficient supply line for our current operation, yes, sir. Mr. OBERSTAR. Could the entire system be switched to natural gas? Mr. AYERS. Yes, certainly, we believe it can. Mr. OBERSTAR. I am just asking technically whether that can be done. The second question is there certainly is an environmental benefit. Is there a cost benefit or is it more costly to operate on natural gas? That may depend on time of year and pricing and the marketplace. Mr. AYERS. Certainly, the way we create steam now is based on a formula of a most economical scenario between coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. Over the course of the last six years, we average about 48 percent coal and another 40 percent or 45 percent natural gas and the reminder, fuel oil. To the question of can we convert completely to natural gas, yes, certainly. Five of those boilers now are capable of fully running on natural gas, and the remaining two that primarily burn coal would take some significant retrofit on the order of a 7 to 10 million dollar retrofit of those two boilers to convert them to 100 percent natural gas, but it certainly could be done. In terms of future costs, in today’s market, natural gas is certainly much more expensive than coal and fuel oil, and we would estimate that an 8 to 10 million dollar-a-year increase in our annual utility bills would result by burning 100 percent natural gas. Mr. BEARD. If I could add, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Go ahead, Mr. Beard. Mr. BEARD. I think it is important to add to this debate, though, that if we switch to 100 percent natural gas, we would certainly have a significantly reduced environmental footprint and carbon footprint. Right now, the Congress is the proud owner and operator of a facility that is the second largest point source pollution in the District of Columbia. And so, I think there is a significant environmental benefit associated with moving to 100 percent gas. The Architect of the Capitol tried to do that in 1980 and was convinced to do otherwise in some very persuasive ways. Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t think it was a matter of convincing. It was a matter of shutting down the Architect and saying it will be done this way. I remember that. Mr. BEARD. Yes. Mr. OBERSTAR. I remember that episode. Mr. BEARD. But I also think that is an important debate to have, especially for this Committee and the leadership of the House of

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 46 Representatives, certainly, and this isn’t a partisan issue at all. It is a very bipartisan issue. There has been very strong support in the House anyway for converting to 100 percent natural gas. We also get some pushback from some of the coal State members as well. Mr. OBERSTAR. I understand that. Now supposing that the Capitol Power Plant operators had to go out and purchase credits in the marketplace. We were just working over the other agencies of the government and the Executive Branch and pushing them on initiatives they can and should be taking for life cycle energy costing and more energy efficient buildings and a more energy efficient fleet in GSA, a vehicle fleet in GSA. We need to be doing that ourselves here in the Capitol complex. So if you had to go out and purchase credits for let us say a rain forest in Ecuador or Bolivia as has been done, reserve an area of forest from harvesting that would absorb the equivalent of the CO2 emissions of the Capitol Power Plant, what do you think that would cost? Mr. AYERS. My understanding in our conversations with Pepco Energy Services is that is about $5 a metric ton. Mr. BEARD. So I think in that case it is not as expensive as one would anticipate. I think the more important thing, and this is why the Speaker has directed that I develop a strategy on how to approach the offset problem between now and the end of June. We are using taxpayer funds, and we have to be extremely careful that we are not investing in some fly by night scheme to offset credits. And so, we have to make sure that whatever offset choice we pick, at least for the House from the standpoint of the House of Representatives, we want to be absolutely certain that what we do withstands a public scrutiny test on behalf of all the Members. And so, I think that is probably the biggest challenge we have because the offset market is a fledgling market. It is much more mature in Europe. In the E.U. and in Europe, it is a much more mature market. It is a safer market, but here we have got to be very careful. Mr. OBERSTAR. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Lou- isiana. I am not a great fan of emissions trading and of credit purchasing. I think it is a fine interim step. It is not a long term solution. The case I just cited a moment ago is not theoretical. It was an actual case of a power plant in the State of Ohio that purchased credits in a rain forest in Ecuador that was slated for logging, and they purchased it or provided money to it for the government of Ec- uador to take it off limits for logging and preserve substantially more carbon absorbing capacity in that rain forest than the power plant was emitting itself. That is good for the interim. We need to have longer term solutions. The gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for your testimony. It was very informative, and it highlights the magnitude of the challenge that you

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 47 face to meet these goals environmentally and yet dealing with the cost that is going to be incurred, especially with an aging infrastructure and so forth. Mr. Ayers, I think in your testimony you mentioned that you are studying replacing the Rayburn roof with a photovoltaic roofing system. Is the existing roof system or roof near the end of its useful life or are we going to remove the existing roof while it is still func- tional? Can you give me an indication of where we are with that? Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. We are actually undertaking two feasibility studies now, one of the Hart Senate Office Building and one on the Rayburn House Office Building, and both of those buildings were selected because those roofs are coming up on the end of their useful lives. We recently completed comprehensive condition assessment sur- veys of all of our buildings, using an independent vendor, and have mapped out the life cycle of all of our facilities. So that is why we picked those two because they are nearing the end of their useful lives. Mr. BOUSTANY. You have accounted for the timing and all that. Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. Mr. BOUSTANY. Good. You mentioned that the Architect of the Capitol was able to achieve a 6.5 percent decrease in energy consumption in fiscal year 2006 despite adding new space and new construction with the Cap- itol Visitors Center, the National Audio-Visual Conservation Cen- ters. What steps were taken in the construction of these new facilities to make them more environmentally friendly? Mr. AYERS. Certainly, primarily in the Capitol Visitors Center, for example, we have selected premium efficiency motors and equipment, installed compact fluorescent lighting throughout, motion sensors in all of the appropriate rooms, low flow plumbing equipment. In addition, of note on the Capitol Visitors Center, we are recycling 50 percent of our construction waste. On the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, which is a partnership between us and the Packard Hu- manities Institute, that is our first green roof under our auspices, the first green roof we have designed and implemented. So that is our sort of foray into that technology. Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. Mr. Beard, how does our carbon footprint in the House of Rep- resentatives complex compare to the carbon footprint of all Federal agencies and private companies as well that employ a similar number of employees? Mr. BEARD. I would have to double check for the record, but my guess would be it would be higher. We have aging infrastructure. I mean our portion of the Capitol is the year 1800, 1790. The Can- non Building is 1901, Longworth, 1930, and this building, 1964, I think, and the Ford Building, I don’t know when the Ford Building was built. But I think that in the private sector, what we are trying to do is something that every major corporation in America is doing and every major institution, university campus and system is doing as well. They are trying to reduce their energy and water costs and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 48 promote energy and water conservation, reduce costs and reduce their carbon footprint at the same time. We are not that big. I mean we are six million square feet on the House side and approximately 10,000 employees. There are universities in your district, I am sure, that are larger than that. So our problems are not that unique. What makes us really unique and the challenge that the Archi- tect’s Office has is the historical nature of our buildings, the tremendous public use that we get of our buildings and then the fact that we have a board of directors that consist of 440 members which, on occasion, can make things challenging and interesting. [Laughter.] Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. In your testimony, you outlined a significant number of proposed changes in the operation of the House. Could you give us an indication of the increased costs associated with these changes? Can you give us a little more information on that? Mr. BEARD. I would be happy to do that for the record. It is going to cost more, particularly purchasing. I think we have tentatively identified approximately $4 million of increased costs that will be included. We are negotiating with the Appropriations Subcommittee, probably somewhere around $4 million in additional costs. But that has to be offset by the reduction in operating costs that we will receive. I mean it is easy to downplay compact fluorescent light bulbs. The payback time on something like that is three, four months. And so, we anticipate replacing just all the lamps with compact fluorescents will save up to $250,000 a year on our electricity costs, just from lamps, and that doesn’t include all the overhead lighting and all the other things that we have suggested. Mr. BOUSTANY. Is there a plan to shut down the Capitol Power Plant? Mr. BEARD. Not that I am aware of. I would say, though, that the Capitol Power Plant is a major issue, given the problems with asbestos and coal and other kinds of things, and it is something that Ms. Norton and Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Moran and Mr. Davis and a lot of other people have mentioned quite frequently. But I think it is a major issue of how we approach that problem in the future. Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay, thank you. Mr. BEARD. Thank you. Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield back. Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his questions. I just want to follow up on that last point about light bulbs. The gentleman from Florida, our Ranking Member on the Full Com- mittee, described the painful process he went through to change a light bulb or get a light bulb changed. You are going to do 10,000 of them, 12,000, I think you have in your statement, Mr. Beard. It is not going to be that painful, is it? Mr. BEARD. My suggestion to him is the next time that happens, take the form, rip it up, pick up the phone and call me or call Ste- phen. We will have somebody there, and we will change it. Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just go and change it myself. Mr. BEARD. Yes or that. Mr. BOUSTANY. They better be careful about what they ask.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 49

Mr. BEARD. The Speaker has directed that we change out 12,000 bulbs over the next six months. We have the money to do it. We have the people. It is just the process of getting around to doing it. We have already done. We did 2,000 in one day or a few days. It was done by the Architect’s Office. So we have the ability, and we are going to do it. Mr. OBERSTAR. I have converted my modest, little home in Chis- holm, Minnesota, with those CFLs, and they work wonderfully. I don’t have to worry about light bulbs burning out. At whatever, $6, $7 a light bulb, at first, I was taken aback by the cost. I said, well, you know, we have got to start somewhere. Let us start right here. Mr. BEARD. I would encourage you to come down to the House Office Supply Store and you can get them at cost. We are selling them at cost. Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, my goodness, well, that is great. Have you conducted a survey or an estimate of what the costs and benefits would be of converting the Capitol complex to photovoltaics or other solar applications? Mr. AYERS. No, sir, we haven’t done that, but we are doing a feasibility study for converting two buildings now, the Hart Building and the Rayburn Building, but we have not done a comprehensive analysis of all our inventory and what those costs and paybacks would be. Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you remember? Well, you were still in college at the time, I am sure, a few years ago. Mr. BEARD. I wasn’t. I am almost as old as you are. Mr. OBERSTAR. I didn’t say that to you, Mr. Beard. [Laughter.] Mr. OBERSTAR. I was part of a group that caused a major experi- ment on the Ford Building to fit it with photovoltaics, and they were installed and operating and we thought very successful. Then after a few years, they just disappeared. Does the Architect of the Capitol have records on that period of time and what the results were? Mr. AYERS. I believe we do, Mr. Chairman, and I will research that for the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Could you that dig that out for us, supply it to the Committee for the record, so we have it available? Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir, certainly. Mr. BEARD. If I could add, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Mr. BEARD. I think what is important is that I would certainly be hesitant that the Congress get in the power generation business itself, at least the House getting in the power generation business. But I think we have worked, we have met with Pepco, and we have told Pepco that we want 100 percent renewable power. They have been very accommodating and said simply, we can meet your needs, and we can meet that with either solar, wind or other sources of renewable gases, municipal landfill gas and others. They have that available to them through their grid, the PMJ grid. Mr. OBERSTAR. A concept that is both old and new is that of district heating and cooling where you have a central generating facility that also uses the steam cooled down to hot water or to dis-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 50 tribute as steam throughout a defined geographic district. That was a fact that was very popular in the iron ore mining country of my district but also elsewhere around the Country, where each city had its own municipal power plant. That municipal power plant then fed the steam through a piping system to the community. We had entire cities that had no chimneys. People would come from the metropolitan area of Minnesota up to the iron range to the City of Buhl and Virginia and Hibbing and stand in admiration of these homes that had no chimneys. But then it became costly to maintain the piping system and to keep them insulated, keep the underground pipes insulated, especially in those cold winters that we experience in northern Min- nesota. Eventually, the system deteriorated as communities didn’t have enough money to use on the maintenance, but it was very successful. At one power generation facility, there existed one emission that over time could be contained, controlled and cleaned up. Now you have all these individual homes that are sending emissions into the air. The White House is a district heating and cooling system. It is a very efficient system, and it saves enormously on emissions into the environment. So what we have here, what we need to do is not be, as you said, Mr. Beard, in the power generation business, but we have what we have and we have to make it more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly, and you are moving on track to accomplish that as the Speaker also has directed. But I think it would be beneficial for us to have an assessment on the use of photovoltaics. We have acres of flat roofs that can accommodate photovoltaic cells if we are asking GSA to do that for the civilian office space of the Federal Government. As I said earlier, GSA spends $5,800,000,000 a year on the electric bill for non- military, non-veterans, non-postal electricity cost, and we can cut that by 70 percent with photovoltaics. That is in the public interest in addition to the environmental benefits that will result from such an initiative. Do you think that is too much to ask, Mr. Beard? Mr. BEARD. Well, I think one of the things that we have done, we have always viewed these buildings as different and unique, and we aren’t included, for example, in any of the requirements that you impose on GSA in the legislation that goes through. So while we don’t have to meet those requirements, we also don’t get to participate in the benefits of some of the financing and other approaches that are used for other government buildings. We participate with GSA in the power purchase contracts, for example, and some other things, but we have always sort of viewed the Capitol complex as unique and different. It is part of the Legis- lative Branch, and it should be separate, but in many ways, we would benefit. At least my view is we would benefit by being able to participate in many of the activities that other government buildings or the private sector undertakes. I am sure that if you went to build these buildings today, build new buildings, we probably put the heating and cooling on top of

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 51 the building. We wouldn’t have the central system we have now, but, as you say, we have what we have. Mr. AYERS. Certainly, those economies of scale of a district system are important to consider. We have seven boilers now that provide steam to 23 buildings and 15 million square feet. We would wind up with another. If we decommission that, we would have to install and retrofit 30 new boilers throughout the complex as well as maintenance staff to maintain those pieces of equipment as well as similarly we have 10 chillers on the chilled water side. We would have to install chilling equipment in every building as well. So there are some economies of scale and efficiencies with the district system. Mr. Chairman, staff has given me a quick update on the photovoltaics on the Ford Building that were installed in 1978, and that system had about a 20-year life cycle, and we did remove it in 2005. It was a glycol-based system. It was leaking, and we had some concerns with the environmental concerns with the glycol system, so we did remove it. But we will try to get you the energy efficiency data for that over its 20-year life cycle. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I appreciate having that information. The Department of Energy has produced a number of documents on solar energy. Just for the record, I want to cite one intriguing fact that they have developed: In a 100 mile square area of the Arizona desert, if photovoltaics were installed with the ability to concentrate that solar power on a grid and fire it to a satellite to be redirected elsewhere in the United States, it could produce all the electricity needs of the entire Country and by using microwave energy to fire through a satellite and redistribute it around the Country, you are not losing power as you would over copper wire or aluminum wire. That is something we ought to be working on. Do you think you will be able to achieve the objective set by the Speaker, that by the end of the 110th Congress, you will be able to operate the House in a carbon neutral manner? Mr. BEARD. Yes, sir. Those are my instructions, and that is what we will do. Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you set forth a strategy on getting that done? Mr. BEARD. Yes, well, we have got a portion of the strategy is already place and, as I said in my testimony, we need to fill that out on June 30th. Many of the actions we will undertake, we can’t undertake immediately. It is going to take us several months to do that. Negoti- ating with Pepco, for example, for purchasing all renewable power, we have had one meeting with them. We will have additional meet- ings, and we will be able to get to that as soon as we can. My directions from the Speaker have been very clear. This is what she wants to do, and my job is to get it done by working with the Architect’s Office. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. BEARD. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Boustany, do you have any further questions?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 52

Mr. BOUSTANY. Just to follow up on that, as you move to comply with the Speaker’s directive and you are going to have to purchase additional power, have you calculated into this any security risk implications? Mr. BEARD. Well, we purchase all of our power now from Pepco. So it would have the same risk. I guess you are referring to security risk of renewables versus non-renewables? Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes. Mr. BEARD. To be perfectly honest, no, we have not. It is something that we should look at, I guess, to make sure. Mr. BOUSTANY. Yes, perhaps you probably ought to look at that as well. Mr. BEARD. Being a participant in a grid and the PJM inter- connect that we are, assuming that we couldn’t receive renewable power, there is a capability to supplement it with power from other resources, and they have more than ample supplies of that. It is one of the advantages of being in a grid. Mr. BOUSTANY. I would just submit as you go forward with the planning process, that is something you might want to consider. Mr. BEARD. Okay. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. OBERSTAR. I just want to point out that next Wednesday, May 16, our hearing continues on climate change and energy independence with an extensive witness list that includes surface transportation witnesses, public buildings witnesses including the American Institute of Architects, the Alliance to Save Energy, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and an aviation panel and a water resources panel. I won’t go through all those witnesses, but I expect to have a very lively and informative hearing next Wednesday. Mr. Beard. Mr. BEARD. Mr. Chairman, if I could just a second, I was remiss in not mentioning an item of importance to Mr. DeFazio. I have had conversations with him about his desire and interest in discussing some kind of alternative energy people moving system for an improved people moving system for staff on the Hill, and it is certainly is something that the Roads Committee staff and myself have discussed and I have discussed with Mr. DeFazio as well. I think in the area of demonstrating leadership for the rest of the Nation, it makes sense to me that the Congress might want to consider, or at least the House if the Senate isn’t interested, certainly the House could demonstrate leadership on alternative fuels by putting some kind of either fuel cell powered buses or some other kind of people moving systems. So it is one of the things that we are discussing with the staff, and I wanted to put in a plug for it on Mr. DeFazio’s behalf. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I am very encouraged by your initiative and willingness to partner with us in moving that agenda forward. We certainly need to have something of that nature for the staff, those who are over at the Ford Building and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 53 other scattered elsewhere, to move them more efficiently, including our subway to the Capitol from the Rayburn. That system is now 42 years old, 43 years old. I remember when it was offloaded from a flatbed truck. I was on the staff at the time. I happened to be taking a little lunch break, walking around, and this flatbed truck pulls up and a huge crane over on the west front of the Capitol. That subway tunnel was a cut and cover operation. They had one segment still open. The crane hovered over and lifted the first of those two passenger vehicles, put it down in the hole, picked the second one up, dropped it in the hole, and they poured the concrete over and sealed. It was entombed forever. The only way you are ever going to get it out of there is piecemeal. Since then, the Senate has this very efficient system that moves automatically. Now, we waste an awful lot of time with those operators, waiting for one straggling Member to jump aboard as though this were the last car out of Dodge, to get on that train. There is another coming, and it is just sitting there empty, and it goes back with two people. We have to do better with that. Do you have any plans for a renewable replacement? Mr. AYERS. Certainly, those systems are clearly at the end of their useful lives, so we will be looking at replacement of those with new technology similar to the technology that we use in the Senate side which was done many years ago. I think nearly 20 years that system was put in. Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a great thrill for visitors to the Capitol, kids who come here on close-up and Presidential Classroom and all the rest, love to ride. It is the biggest thing they talk about when they go home. Oh, we got to ride on the Capitol subway. But it is an antiquated system. Mr. AYERS. It is. Yes, it is. Mr. OBERSTAR. We have to do better. Mr. BEARD. My granddaughter’s biggest thrill in coming to visit her grandfather was to go on the little train. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your testimony, for all the work that you are doing. Mr. BEARD. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. We look forward to continuing our cooperation and participation with you. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his participation and his perseverance throughout a long morning. Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. AYERS. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 54

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.029 55

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.030 56

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.031 57

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.032 58

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.033 59

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.034 60

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.035 61

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.036 62

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.037 63

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.038 64

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.039 65

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.040 66

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.041 67

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.042 68

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.043 69

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.044 70

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.045 71

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.046 72

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.047 73

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.048 74

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.049 75

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.050 76

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.051 77

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.052 78

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.053 79

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.054 80

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.055 81

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.056 82

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.057 83

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.058 84

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.059 85

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.060 86

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.061 87

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.062 88

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.063 89

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.064 90

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.065 91

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.066 92

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.067 93

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.068 94

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.069 95

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.070 96

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.071 97

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.072 98

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.073 99

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.074 100

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.075 101

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.076 102

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.077 103

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.078 104

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.079 105

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.080 106

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.081 107

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.082 108

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.083 109

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.084 110

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.085 111

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.086 112

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.087 113

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.088 114

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.089 115

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.090 116

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.091 117

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.092 118

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.093 119

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.094 120

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.095 121

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.096 122

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.097 123

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.098 124

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.099 125

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.100 126

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.101 127

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.102 128

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.103 129

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.104 130

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.105 131

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.106 132

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.107 133

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.108 134

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.109 135

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.110 136

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.111 137

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.112 138

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.113 139

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.114 140

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.115 141

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.116 142

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.117 143

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.118 144

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.119 145

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.120 146

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.121 147

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.122 148

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.123 149

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.124 150

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.125 151

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.126 152

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.127 153

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.128 154

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.129 155

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.130 156

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.131 157

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.132 158

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.133 159

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.134 160

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.135 161

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.136 162

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.137 163

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.138 164

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.139 165

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.140 166

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.141 167

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.142 168

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.143 169

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.144 170

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.145 171

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.146 172

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.147 173

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.148 174

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.149 175

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.150 176

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.151 177

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.152 178

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.153 179

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.154 180

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.155 181

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.156 182 CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY INDEPEND- ENCE: TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUC- TURE ISSUES

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:06 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Oberstar [Chair- man of the Committee] Presiding. Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- ture will come to order. This is the second in our series of hearings on climate change and energy independence and the role of transportation and infrastructure initiatives in the global climate issue. We had a hearing a week ago with a rather lengthy list of witnesses and an abundance of testimony. And it was fascinating. We have another robust day of hearings and very knowledgeable, learned panel—panels—witnesses with great storehouses of information. And I anticipate that the Committee’s hearings will be a compendium for the future of the factual information-based presen- tations on the subject of our time. A fascinating book that I have read and reread over time entitled, ″The Whale and the Supercomputer: On The Northern Front of Climate Change,″ by Charles Wohlforth and others. The book starts out: ‘‘I love the winter. It’s when I fly through the birch forest like a hawk. If the snow is good in Anchorage and at Kincaid Park, the cross country ski trails swoop among trees and over steep round hills, unwrapping silent white glades and black thickets edged with hoary frost in quick smoothly evolving succession.’’ Lovely start to a book. He continues, ‘‘but some recent winters were still born in this part of Alaska. Fall came late and Halloween, when it should be deep snow, we took children trick-or-treating without coats. The winter’s first snowfall was later than ever. And then we had rain and thaw. Ski trails were ruined. Running instead, plodding and earth bound was no substitute. In late winter, normally the best season, the sled dog races were cancelled for lack of snow. That almost never happened when I was a child. But now it happens every couple of years.’’ Science tells us, he continues, that no single winter can be blamed on global climate change. ‘‘Weather naturally varies from year to year while climate represents a broad span of time and space beyond our immediate perception. But science, too, has taken notice. ‘‘Average winter temperatures in interior Alaska have risen 7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950s. Annual precipitation increased by 30 percent. Alaska glaciers are shrinking, permanently frozen ground was melting. Spring is earlier. Arctic sea ice was thinner and less extensive.’’ Winter, he writes, ‘‘was going to hell.’’

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 183 ‘‘The Inupiat elders of the Arctic noticed first. Sustained for a thousand years by hunting whales from the floating ice, they developed fine perceptions of the natural systems around them. The Inupiat adapted to the new world, knowing that the rest of the world would eventually follow. What is happening here is beyond debate: Burning fossil fuel elevated the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. We have a crime scene, victim, suspect, motive, opportunity and smoking gun; plenty of evidence to convict.’’ It goes on to say that, for 420,000 years, the carbon cycle was in a rough range of balance. Carbon in the atmosphere ranged from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. Within the last 100 years, that has dramatically changed. There is more carbon in the atmosphere now than at any time in 420,000 years. On that sobering note, we will begin the second of our hearings on this issue of climate change. Energy consumption is expected to grow some 23 percent. The Energy Information Administration pre- dicts that, by 2025, worldwide energy use will grow 57 percent. Eleven of the past 12 years have been the hottest since 1850; 2006, the warmest on record. Sea level is rising, as ″The Whale and the Supercomputer″ report. We are hit by the dual crunch of rising energy prices and rising carbon in the atmosphere. Legislation that produces increased energy efficiency and results in a degree of independence, hopefully total independence, is important for us to consider in the transportation sector. That alone accounts for over 27 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, second only to electric power generation. And there are things we can do in this Committee with our legislation and with what is already in place, a good deal of which we have already enacted. A mode shift of only 10 percent to transit will save the equivalent of 550 million barrels of oil, the amount we import from Saudi Arabia every year. The President has joined the effort with his statement just a day or so ago establishing higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and concluded by saying the steps he announced today were ‘‘not a substitute for effective legislation.’’ Well, we are going to take the President at his word and, in effect, at his invitation and move toward legislation—not far-out stuff—but what is available, in a sense, off-the-shelf. One provision of which we have already enacted—or not—I am sorry, that we have passed through Committee and through the House. It is pending in the Senate. That legislation would convert the Department of Energy building to photovoltaic cells. Not far-out technology, but that which is already available and has been developing for over 30 years. If we don’t do these things, we are on a crash course with history. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute announced results of continuing studies predicting that summers that now average in the low to mid 80s by 70 years from now will average between 100 and 110 degrees in Chicago, Atlanta and elsewhere. Dr. Sam Epstein, of the Center For Health and Global Environ- ment, who has spoken with our Committee Members several years ago, points to the rise in malaria, dengue fever, West Nile Virus and other vectors that transmit disease in a wider range and a

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 184 wider latitude in the earth because temperatures are warmer and more favorable to the lifecycle of those vectors. There are many other considerations that I will enter into the record at this point with the complete statement, but I think that frames the subject matter. We are looking forward to the testimony of this first panel and the subsequent panels, and then we will jointly fashion a legislative response at the invitation, in effect, of the President, and do things that are realistic that are within the ambit of this Committee. These will hopefully contribute in the short term, as well as also in the long range, to reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his participation on this hearing. And I recognize and I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. MICA. Thank you and thank you for convening the second session on the important topic of climate change and energy independence and our transportation infrastructure issues relating to how we can do a better job. I started off my comments last week again citing some simple facts, and I think you reminded us today that about 32 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions come from power generation and cited the problem of even the U.S. Capitol building not being efficient, actually the second biggest polluter I guess, in Washington, D.C., I read afterwards. I didn’t know it fell into the second category. I am sure automobiles and transportation, which account for 28 percent of those emissions, also pollute our Nation’s capital’s air. I didn’t count sheep last night, but I did have a chance to read some of the testimony, and since I won’t be able to stay through this, I am going to turn over to Mr. Duncan in a few minutes here. But particularly, I want to thank Mr. Millar. And I read some of his recommendations at the conclusion and concur with them that we have to have incentives. The other thing, too, that, with public transportation, and I consider myself a strong advocate of mass and public transportation, which we have done some in the United States, but not enough to promote but to, just looking at my own district, the lack of intermodal connectivity and convenience for passengers. And I represent six counties from Jacksonville all the way down to Orlando and found either lack of public transit systems or existing public transit systems that didn’t move people through—throughout say even my district from Orlando to Jacksonville. No one thinks about it, but our long distance carrier is—today our long distance transit carrier is Greyhound, a company that actually makes a profit and moves people. But we don’t accommodate Greyhound, which is our national carrier intermodal service in most of those bus systems. In fact, one of the—I went to Deland, Florida, the county seat of Volusia County, about a week ago, and the bus station is on the north side of town at a little stop. And we are building a new intermodal on the south side of town where our bus service will eventually feed through the county and into a regional system. But we have made no accommodation for that carrier. So we need to have considerations of convenience for people in truly intermodal functions in our policy. So I thank him.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 185 And then Ed Hamberger is here. Last week I cited, and I repeat again, in 2006, 1 gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of Freight an average of 414 miles. And I saw on his testimony the potential that we have for moving—well, trucks do a very good job at moving much more freight in a very efficient manner and dealing with capacity issues for the future in an energy efficient manner, and I appreciated his testimony which I also read last night. Finally, we have got, Mr. Rader is here. Mr. Rader represents Colorado Railcar, and I am one of their strongest champions. They produce the most efficient transit rail vehicle probably in the world, right in the United States, developed it without Federal funds, at their own initiative. Colorado Railcar, which is now, we will hear in his testimony, where that is going to be used, but fuel efficient and emissions-efficient and very proud of what he has done, Amer- ican workers with an American product. And finally, on another panel, we have Jim May. I won’t get to ask him the question, but I did check on the issue, and he does speak to it some, the issue of the European Union moving forward with plans to tax commercial passenger aircraft that do pollute the European skies. And I know that they are waiting on a ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, to come up with some standards, but eventually, if measures aren’t taken in the United States to deal with the aviation aircraft emissions, we will be held to task either by international organizations or by organizations of states like the European Union. And that is something that we also have to deal with. So with a couple of those comments, again, I am pleased to be here and thank you for carrying on this important responsibility. Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I greatly appreciate your comments. And we will proceed in that spirit. Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry. Mr. OBERSTAR. It is rare for a witness to make a point of parliamentary inquiry. Does the witness wish to be recognized? Mr. HAMBERGER. If the Chair would be so kind. Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Mr. HAMBERGER. I wonder if it would be appropriate to let Mr. Mica know, since he is leaving, that the number that he was using, 414 miles per gallon was accurate in 2005, but the number for 2006 is 423. And so I did not want to let that—— Mr. OBERSTAR. It is so noted in the testimony that you will be delivering which I also read. Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for correcting the record. And we will put on suspension the sole minority staffer that we have until he gets those figures correct.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 186

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN LASH, PRESIDENT, WORLD RE- SOURCES INSTITUTE; WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; ED- WARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMER- ICAN RAILROADS; ANDY D. CLARKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS; EDWARD HALL, GEN- ERAL MANAGER OF ENGINE TECHNOLOGY, GENERAL ELEC- TRIC; TOM RADER, PRESIDENT, COLORADO RAILCAR; AND GREG COHEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE. Mr. OBERSTAR. With those trenchant observations and the quiv- ering in the background, we will begin with our first panel: Jona- than Lash, President of World Resources Institute. I have been a fan of Mr. Lash’s writings over many years, and he has piqued our conscience and stimulated the public debate and forced the issue to the forefront with factually based and substantiated writings for which we are most appreciative. Mr. Lash. Mr. LASH. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here with you this morning. We congratulate you on pursuing this issue in the Committee. The World Resources Institute is an environmental think tank. We work on global issues and have worked on issues of climate change for two decades now. It is great that we finally have the chance to begin to discuss the solutions with the Congress. I am going to very quickly run through a few slides, Mr. Chairman, confirming some of the things you said in your opening statement. If I could go to the next slide? The earth is warming. There is no doubt of this fact. It is warming rapidly. It has warmed a little less than 1 degree centigrade, most of that in the lifetime of those of us in the room. The pace of warming is outside anything in human history. Next slide. The warming is caused, as the Chairman pointed out, almost entirely by the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, most importantly carbon dioxide. As the Chair said, carbon dioxide levels are the highest in human history. In fact, they are now the highest in 650,000 years, we are quite certain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the official process that the United States is a party to, said it is more than 90 percent likely that the warming is largely caused by human activities. Next slide. The warming has gone far enough that we all have begun to see the effects of the warming. As oceans have warmed, both the Atlan- tic and the Pacific, the number of hurricanes that turn into Cat- egory 4 or 5 hurricanes, the most serious, has almost doubled. So, in the period from 1975 to 1989, there were half as many that became Category 4 and 5 hurricanes as there were in the period from 1990 until 1994. We saw the first South Atlantic hurricane in history 2 years ago. We saw a 3-year Amazon drought. That impacts the rain forest. A recent scientific study confirmed that we are apt to see such droughts in the Amazon about every decade now because of the changed ocean conditions. If we could go on to the next slide. The Chairman mentioned the changed conditions in the far north. The rapid melting of the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 187 Greenland ice sheet has shocked even scientists who predicted it because it is going so much faster than predicted. Glaciers around the world are retreating. That becomes a significant issue because many, many cities around the world depend on snow pack to supply them with water in arid areas. A group of 11 admirals and gen- erals who looked at the security implications of warming issued a report a few weeks ago in which they said climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and present significant national security challenges for the United States. They went on to call for action. Now, to mitigate those threats. Next slide please. That is also the call of the 22 major companies and six environmental organizations that joined together in the United States Cli- mate Action Partnership and issued a call to action last January, urging the Congress to adopt mandatory legislation that slows, stops and reverses the build-up of emissions of greenhouse gasses from the United States that called for the United States to take unilateral action. They made that call because they saw that they needed certainty for investment that created an opportunity for technological change in the future. Also, because they believed that action sooner is cheaper than action later, and because of energy security issues, all of the steps we take for climate change would help. If we could go, skip the next slide. Skip this one. For the United States, the problem is essentially one of cars, coal and buildings. The buildings drive 70 percent of the emissions from the electric power sector. Cars are responsible for most of the 27 percent from the transport sector. And coal is the major cause of emissions from the electric power sector. In each case, there is an opportunity to change technologies, technologies that are 50 to 100 years old, that will give us an opportunity to compete in tomorrow’s markets, which will demand low carbon alternatives and which our industries can produce better than anyone else’s if they are given a platform to do it from, one that gives them the opportunity to be assured of profit from low carbon technologies. Last slide. There are a number of measures that we can pursue that produce both benefits for energy security and benefits for climate. Efficient transportation, public transit, building efficiency are all very positive. But there are some we could do that might improve energy security but would be highly damaging to climate. For instance, the adoption of coal liquefaction technology. It is important to distinguish those that are in the upper right hand quadrant here that would benefit both national goals. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Your complete statement will be included in the record and has a compendium of information, very thorough well researched presentation on the issues before us. Thank you. Excel- lent presentation. Bill Millar, President of American Public Transit—I am sorry— Public Transportation Association.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 188

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to be with you, Mr. Duncan, the other Members of the Committee. And I appreciate your opening remarks and those of Mr. Mica. You have done a good job of outlining the urgency of the issue here. As has been said, the transportation sector accounts for about two- thirds of the petroleum used in this country, 28 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. If we are going to beat America’s addic- tion to oil, we simply have to reduce transportation related petroleum consumption. I am pleased to report that the American public transportation industry is already leading the way in reducing petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study by ICF International concluded that the direct savings from public transit that is used already today in America is about 1.4 billion gallons per year. APTA currently has a study under way that is going to look at the next order of savings because we know, if people use public transit, they live differently. They save additional oil beyond the obvious of, ‘‘I took the bus; I didn’t take my car today.’’ The amount of savings that that amounts to, that savings amounts to, in that first order, is equal to all of the fuel consumed by cars in smaller States such as New Mexico or Utah. It is also five times the amount that would be saved by converting the Federal light duty vehicle fleet to alternative fuels. That may be a good idea, but I am just trying to give you a sense of the order of magnitude. Now these savings result from several important characteristics of public transit, certainly that transit carries multiple passengers in each vehicle, that traffic congestion is reduced because transit takes cars off the highways, and transit systems do not rely exclu- sively on petroleum to power their fleets. They can be flexibly, and many are, flexibly powered today. Now, the energy and emission reductions could be multiplied if we could have a greater use of public transit. Cities around the world that have more public transit use less energy. A study done a couple of years ago showed that European cities are on average two and a half times more energy efficient than American, and comparable Asian cities are five times more energy efficient. These are all cities that use an extensive amount of public transportation. Unfortunately, public transportation isn’t available to all Ameri- cans who wish to use it. Only about one in four Americans actually has what they consider to be adequate—whatever that term means—public transportation. Nonetheless, Americans are using public transit in record numbers, Mr. Chairman, as you have noted over the years, more than 10 billion rides a year now being taken on public transportation. Public transportation use, over the last 11 years, is growing faster than the use of the automobile and much, much faster than the growth of our population. Now, as the Congress considers these important issues, and as it puts together its policy ideas on energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions, APTA wishes to offer five principles that we think are important to be included. First, transit use significantly reduces energy consumption and greenhouse gas, therefore encouraging public transportation must be a part of the overall strategy.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 189 Second, energy savings from emission reductions from increased transit use are long-term savings. These are investments we are making that will still benefit us 100 years from now. For example, Boston opened the first subway in 1901; New York City in 1904. More than 100 years later, those cities and indeed our nation is still benefitting by those investments made at that time. Principle three, public entities like public transit agencies that directly produce energy savings and reduce emissions should be eligible to receive revenues generated from any carbon tax or cap- and-trade style program. Four, energy conservation and greenhouse gas emission reduction should be factors in transportation and land-use planning. The Federal Government should encourage State and local governments to coordinate land-use planning, and Federal facilities should be cited to be accessible to public transit so employees and Federal employees as well as visitors to Federal facilities can easily use public transit to get there. Fifth, new investments in energy efficient public transit vehicles and facilities that will increase substantially the energy efficiency should receive encouragement from the Federal Government. And if there is to be a program of incentives, we certainly want to include that. My written testimony includes a series of more specific recommendations in the area of tax policy and promotion of green technology and related items. We certainly look forward to working with you and the Committee as you develop your ideas further. We would be happy to make any additional information available you might prefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Millar, APTA’s members have done a spectacular job of providing increased mobility with lower emissions and reaching more areas of our metropolitan areas than ever before. And the remarkable fact for me is that, just 15 years ago, New York City accounted for 60 percent of all transit trips in the Nation. That is down below 40 percent now. Not because New York isn’t using transit—their numbers have grown—but because the rest of the Nation has grown faster and has much further to go, but we are there. We have a recorded vote on the floor right now. I will recess for this vote, come back, and we will continue with testimony. There will be another series of votes later, but there is debate inter- vening. And so, Mr. Hamberger, we are anxious to hear about new high horsepower locomotives, information technology systems, reduced idling, and new locomotive crew training programs that are all a feature of the freight rail landscape. Mr. HAMBERGER. Look forward to it. Thank you, sir. Mr. OBERSTAR. And the rest of our panel as well. Thank you. Committee will stand in recess for roughly 10 or 15 minutes. [Recess.] Mr. DUNCAN. [presiding.] Chairman Oberstar told me to go ahead and proceed with the next witness. I am not attempting an Alex- ander Hague moment here. The next witness is our friend, Edward Hamberger, who is president of the Association of American Railroads.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 190 Mr. Hamberger. Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. The AAR appreciates the opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation. Freight railroads are committed to being part of the solution to the challenge of climate change. Greater use of freight rail offers a simple, inexpensive and immediate way to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions without hurting the economy. Freight railroads are clearly the mode of choice for fuel efficiency. Greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to fuel consumption because railroads are on average three or four times more fuel efficient than trucks. Every ton mile of freight that moves by rail instead of truck reduces these emissions by two-thirds or more. I want to emphasize up front that the testimony we have submitted and my testimony today is not meant to be an anti truck diatribe. Our largest customer segment is intermodal. And that is achieved because of cooperation and partnership with the trucking industry. But having said that, the facts paint a very compelling picture that moving freight by rail is the most environmentally friendly way to move freight. For example, according to the Amer- ican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, transferring just 1 percent of the long haul freight currently being moved by trucking to rail would reduce fuel consumption by 110 million gallons per year and decrease emissions by 1.62 million tons. The demand for freight transportation is projected to increase substantially in the coming years. And if the 10 percent of that traffic that is predicted to move over the highways could move by rail instead, the cumulative reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could reach as high as 212 million tons by 2020. Working with our suppliers, whom you will hear from a little later, railroads work constantly to improve fuel efficiency, with stunning results. In 1980, one gallon of diesel fuel moved 1 ton of freight an average of 235 miles. In 2006, as I already mentioned, the same amount of fuel would move 1 ton of freight by rail an average of 423 miles, roughly equivalent to the distance from Boston to Baltimore and an 80 percent increase over 1980. All seven U.S. Class I railroads have joined EPA’s SmartWay Transport, a voluntary partnership between freight transporters and the EPA that establishes incentives for fuel efficiency improvements. To accomplish these goals, railroads make extensive use of technology, training and changes in operating practices to curb fuel consumption. New long haul locomotives are more powerful, more fuel efficient and emit fewer greenhouse gasses. New genset and hybrid-switching locomotives and idling-reduction technologies also reduce fuel consumption and emissions. On-board locomotive monitoring systems help engineers determine the optimum speed for moving the freight in the most fuel-efficient way. Information technology is used along with in-trip planning systems to smooth traffic flow, better utilize assets and reduce fuel consumption. It is important to note that freight railroads account for a very small share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, just .6 percent in 2005, according to EPA. And we are quite proud of the fact that even though freight rail moved 42 percent of intercity freight on a ton-mile basis in 2005—we moved 42 percent—our greenhouse gas

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 191 emissions amounted to only 2.2 percent of the total transportation sector greenhouse gas footprint. In addition to reducing fuel consumption and emissions, moving more freight by rail would also help reduce highway congestion and save fuel that otherwise would be consumed by motor vehicles caught in traffic. As you are aware, a single intermodal train can take up to 280 trucks off the road directly, and other trains could move the equivalent of 500 trucks of pay load. Policy makers can and should take steps to attract more freight to railroads and expand the greenhouse gas emission benefits of rail transportation. Two ways of doing this are through tax incentives to expand rail capacity and through public-private partnerships for freight rail infrastructure projects. Both of these concepts are endorsed and supported by AASHTO and its freight rail bottom line report. And of course, this Committee gave great support to many freight public-private partnerships in the SAFETEA-LU bill in 2005, including, in Chicago, the CREATE program. I would draw the Members’ attention to H.R. 2116, a bill introduced recently with the lead cosponsorship of Congressmen Kendrick Meek and Eric Cantor, which is entitled, The Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Act, which provides a tax incentive for expansion capital—expansion capital only—also for an increase in horsepower for new locomotives. And I draw the Members’ attention to that to consider whether that would be an appropriate way to encourage even more investment to expand capacity to move more freight by rail. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee and others to address the challenges of climate change. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. [Presiding.] Thank you for your very compact testimony and for the extensive documentation you have submitted to the Committee which will be included in the record. Our next witness, Andy Clarke for the League of American Bicyclists, is going to show us how we can convert from the hydrocarbon economy to the carbohydrate economy. Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you. On behalf of our members and the tens of millions of adults who will get on a bike and ride this year, thank you for giving us the chance to share what we think are some of the considerable roles that cycling and walking can play in combating climate change and promoting energy independence. This Friday, tens of thousands of people in communities across the country will bicycle to work in celebration of National Bike to Work day. In the D.C. Area alone, more than 7,000 riders will participate. Now, if those 7,000 riders chose to drive to work instead of bicycling, they would generate 32 tons of carbon dioxide, one and a half tons of carbon monoxide, and they would burn half a tanker truck of gasoline, and they would do exactly the same thing on the way home. That is just 1 day in one community. The potential to increase the numbers of people bicycling and walking to work in the United States in the short term is even more impressive. San Francisco and other cities have more than doubled bicycle commuting between 1990 and 2000 through invest-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 192 ment in bike lanes, trails, bike parking, maps, education programs, encouragement activities and a focused bicycle plan. Bicycling to work is just part of the picture however. More than three-quarters of trips a day are not for commuting at all. They are social, recreational, for shopping trips. And amazingly, more than 40 percent of all those trips are 2 miles or less, a very manageable bike ride. And more than 1 quarter are just 1 mile or less. These short trips are the most polluting and the most feasible to switch to bicycling and walking. The City of Chicago, for example, recently adopted a 2015 goal of getting 5 percent of all trips 5 miles or less made by bicycle. And we would encourage Congress and the Federal Government to encourage more urbanized areas to establish such goals. When barriers to bicycling are removed, people start riding. A great example is Portland, Oregon, where bicycle use has more than quadrupled since 1994 as their bike network has grown from 60 miles to 260 miles. They, too, have invested in cyclist and in mo- torist education, encouragement programs and very simple measures, such as providing bicycle parking. They have fully integrated transit and walking and bicycling. Many of the short car trips in our metro areas are school related, parents driving their children to and from school over really very short distances. The Federal Safe Routes to School program created by SAFETEA-LU is a welcome opportunity to change the habits of a generation of school children by enabling them to walk and bicycle to school. And we know from the initial Federal pilot program in Marin County that real mode shift is possible. So what can Congress do today to encourage more people to walk and bicycle instead of automatically reaching for the car keys for all of their trips? First, we would encourage you to consider establishing automobile vehicle miles traveled reduction targets that States and lo- calities can meet by shifting from short polluting trips by automobiles to walking, bicycling and to transit. Second, Congress can appropriate funding for the Conserve By Bicycle program, which was authorized in the Energy Act in 2005. This program directs the U.S. DOT to develop and disseminate best practices on how to replace car trips with bicycle trips for those short distances. Third, Congress could pass the Commuter Tax Benefit Act, H.R. 1498, which would extend the transportation fringe benefit currently offered to transit, van pool and qualified parking plans to bicyclists. Fourth, Congress can ensure that any future rescissions of Fed- eral transportation funds do not disproportionately hit bicycle and pedestrian funding programs. In 2006, for example, $600 million were taken back from the transportation enhancement program, a key funding source for bicycling and walking. Fifth, Congress could direct the General Services Administration to make the Federal Government a model employer for promoting bicycling and walking to work. And finally, in the next transportation bill, perhaps sooner, Con- gress could codify the U.S. Department of Transportation’s design guidance on accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians so that

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 193 every new and every improved highway project is a complete street that truly serves all users. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, many new technologies and solutions will be presented as strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. We support a full range of those strategies from congestion fighting to carbon taxes, from increased inner city and freight travel by train to road pricing. All of these have the potential to help shift travel to bicycling and walking, provided our two modes are considered from the outset. I urge you not to overlook the simple tried and tested existing technologies of bicycling and walking. Unlike any of the other options presented to you as we move forward, these two options will not only tackle climate change and energy independence but will simultaneously address critical issues of obesity, physical inac- tivity, congestion and air quality. Thank you again for allowing me to be part of the hearing, and I hope you will consider some of our considerations. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We certainly are going to consider and include those, especially the design guidance issue in the next iteration of the Surface Transportation Act. And we are also going to have a provision in the aviation bill to make parking for bicycles at airports an eligible item—not require it—but make it an eligible item so airport by airport can decide to build bicycling facilities. We have many instances of persons who want to commute to the airport, take their plane, but they have no place to leave their bike. And I think that everything we can do to encourage commuting by bicycle is a positive way forward for the country. I will not unfortunately be able to participate in the bike-to-work program on Friday. I did it last Saturday. I biked from Potomac down to the tidal basin, but the last 2 miles are way too dangerous to do it alone. You need guidance to bike that last 2 miles up to Capitol Hill from down there. But unfortunately, I have to be on a trip to Can- ada. Our next witness, Mr. Hall, general manager of engine technology from G E. And I greatly appreciate the work that GE has done. One of the first trips that our Ranking Member, Mr. Mica, took with me when I chaired the aviation Subcommittee was to Cincinnati to see the GE 90, which was then nearing its completion of development. It was the most advanced aircraft engine in the world at the time. Others have caught up since then. But it was interesting to note that, 50 years earlier, GE had developed the first jet engine with a thousand pounds of thrust, and that day, we saw 90,000 pounds of thrust. Mr. Hall. Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to address the Committee. As executive leader of engine engineering for GE Transportation, I am responsible for, among other things, all phases of diesel engine development. GE Transportation is the world’s leading manufacturer of diesel electric locomotives with more than 15,000 locomotives operating around the globe. My testimony this morning will focus on two technologies that are being introduced right now for locomotives, hybrid technology and what we call trip optimizer, both of which will be beneficial for

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 194 reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing our energy independence. The first technology I would like to discuss, the hybrid locomotive, will be demonstrated for the first time later this month at a planned GE eco-imagination event in California. We are all familiar with hybrids in the automotive context, but let me explain how it works for locomotives. All hybrid vehicles use some form of energy storage to recover energy that would otherwise be wasted. The difference between a car and a train however is that while a hybrid car can recover and store energy from a single vehicle, a hybrid locomotive has the potential to capture and store the energy from the hundreds of rail cars and thousands of tons of freight being pulled. Locomotives, like non-hybrid cars, use brakes to dissipate the energy of the moving vehicle by converting this emergency to heat and venting that heat to the atmosphere. GE’s evolution hybrid is a modified version of our evolution locomotive that has the ability to store some of the energy generated during braking in a series of specially designed lead-free batteries. The evolution hybrid utilizes existing drive motors to convert this braking energy into electrical energy that is stored in the battery system. When needed, the batteries supply the locomotive with extra power that can then be used to reduce fuel consumption and reduce emissions. So now, when the locomotive is traveling downhill, making sharp turns or slowing down for speed limits, the energy generated by braking will be stored in the battery and that power won’t go to waste. This reduces the total power that needs to be generated by the diesel electric engine, saving on total fuel burn and emissions. The evolution hybrid can even use the batteries as the primary source of power to reduce emissions in restrictive zones. In terms of carbon reduction, the evolution hybrid has the ability to reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent when compared to today’s evolution locomotive. Using 10 percent less fuel directly reduces the emissions of carbon dioxide, NOX and particulate by 10 percent. If hybrid technology replaced 100 Tier 1 locomotives now in service over the next 10 years, it would save over 510,000 tons of carbon dioxide from being produced, equivalent to removing 8,900 cars annually or 89,000 cars over 10 years from our roads. In terms of potential energy savings, if the evolution hybrid replaced 100 Tier 1 locomotives in service, it would save more than 45 millions gallons of fuel over next 10 years. The second technology I would like to discuss is called trip optimizer. Trip optimizer is a locomotive control system enhancement that manages the speed and throttle settings to minimize fuel consumption taking into account the composition of the train, the terrain, track conditions, train dynamics and weather without neg- atively impacting the train’s arrival time. Put simply, trip optimizer uses global positioning systems, or GPS, and forward- looking terrain mapping to plan a locomotive’s trip, and it develops a recipe to minimize fuel usage and meet speed limits along the way. The recipe is constantly updated and gives the on-board crew a tool to manage the journey in a completely novel way, by allowing explicit trades between journey completion time and the fuel used as opposed to operating at or near the speed limit all the time.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 195 In principle, trip optimizer could be applied to any engine and achieve a 10 percent fuel savings and a 10 percent reduction in carbon dioxide, NOX and particulate emissions. To give you a sense of the large potential benefits of this technology, applying trip optimizer to a single GE evolution locomotive would save 360 tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions and 32 gallons of fuel annually. If this technology is installed on a thousand Tier 2 GE evolution locomotives in a given year, we have the possibility of 360,000 fewer tons of carbon dioxide emitted. These two technologies show that there are innovative solutions for our transportation systems that can achieve both the reduction in all emissions and the net savings in fuel. As this Committee considers climate change and energy independence, GE believes it is critical that government policies encourage innovations that save fuel and reduce emissions overall, taking into account traditional pollutants and carbon dioxide and, at a minimum, provide incentives to railroads that adopt such technologies and ensure that existing and future policies do not present obstacles to their introductions; on the contrary, policies should promote their development. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you and the Members of the Com- mittee for the opportunity to testify this morning. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, very much, Mr. Hall. We will come back to you in a little bit. Mr. Rader, thank you also for being with us. We—I had the privilege of riding your rail car a few years ago in Colorado, and I was very impressed with the domestically developed technology and the smooth ride. It wasn’t a very long ride, but it was a nice smooth ride. Thank you for being with us today. Mr. RADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this invitation to discuss with your Committee the effects of global warning and the rail transit industry. I, like you, am old enough to remember magazine covers and numerous headlines proclaiming eternal winter and the coming ice age. Yet I think it is important to note that we don’t necessarily have to accept all of the theories of global warming to realize that the time has come to redouble our efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and its consequent emissions. Furthermore, it is time to utilize all of the tools at hand to accomplish this goal. The Congress of the United States and specifically your Com- mittee can take several key steps towards significantly reducing the consumption of fossil fuel in our country by understanding and encouraging the utilization of technology that has been developed and tested during the last 4 years. The ever-increasing cost of fossil fuels means that the cost of travel, and specifically commuting, is pushing more Americans to utilize more efficient forms of travel, including rail transit. This growth means that rail system capacities must rise and that rail systems, new rail systems, will be created. You can ensure that these expanding and new systems contribute to the reduction in fossil fuel consumption and emissions by encouraging the use of newly demonstrated and efficient technologies like the modern clean diesel multiple unit train. When we study the benefits of that train, it becomes obvious why they are

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 196 so popular in Europe and elsewhere. When we compare the operation of DMUs to traditional locomotive haul trains using data from U.S. transit agencies, we get some astounding results that are quite relevant to the subject of today’s hearings. Mr. RADER. A clean diesel multiple unit train will produce a 50 percent reduction in fuel consumption, a 68 percent reduction in emissions, a 75 percent reduction in noise. It will reduce the operating costs of the train set by an amount equal to twice the capital cost of the train over its 30-year life. These will all come at no increase in total capital cost to achieve the benefits. Therefore, the development of this technology and the manufacturer of DMUs in the U.S. to U.S. standards addresses many issues of importance to this Committee and to the U.S. citi- zenry as a whole. First, it will contribute to energy security by reducing fuel consumption per passenger mile in rail transit by 50 percent or more. This is a conservation measure whose capital cost is self-liqui- dating over the life of the rail car. Second, it will contribute to improved air quality by reducing engine exhaust emissions by 68 percent or more per passenger mile. The DMU could save thousands of pounds of emissions from entering our atmosphere. Third, it will develop the U.S. technological know-how to produce more efficient products in the future. Two years ago I testified that the principal reason that we had not enjoyed the benefits of DMUs in the United States was that there was no U.S.-owned manufacturer with the incentive to develop advanced cars for the nascent U.S. market; that in fact foreign manufacturers had brought their structurally noncompliant cars to the United States, demonstrated them, and then explained to us that we just needed to change our standards of strength and safety so that they could use their noncompliant cars. This cam- paign continues to this day. Today I am pleased to report that due to the joint funding of the Federal Railroad Administration at the direction of Congress and the Florida Department of Transportation, clean diesel multiple unit technology trains are in use in south Florida and they are producing a savings of more than 50 percent in fuel per seat-mile and at least a 70 percent reduction in emissions per seat-mile compared to the locomotive haul technology that is also in service there. How can this Committee ensure that expanding in new rail transit systems will use the best available technology to reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions? First, I think you can encourage the FTA to reward systems that reduce fossil fuel consumption and emissions by increasing the percentage match for those who meet such goals. Second, you can work with other Committees of Congress to ensure that research and development tax credits continue to incentivize U.S. companies to develop advanced technologies that achieve your goals. Third, continue to encourage and fund demonstration programs at the FRA and other agencies which get these new technologies into the field where they can be proven and subsequently adopted by agencies.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 197 Thank you very much for this opportunity. Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, thank you for your innovative work. Now, Mr. Cohen, the Highway Users Alliance. I welcome your presentation. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. I am hon- ored to have the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of highway users on the subject of climate change and energy independence. The Highway Users Alliance is an umbrella association that brings together the interests of various users of the highway modes that contribute to the highway trust fund, including AAA clubs, truckers, bus companies, RVers, motorcyclists, and a wide variety of businesses. For 75 years we have worked closely with this Committee to advocate for highway bills and to promote a strong and trustworthy highway trust fund. My written testimony contains more information on what individual highway users can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage. It also discusses legislation under consideration in other Committees and how this Committee might weigh in, particularly on how to protect the trust fund under legislation to increase alternate fuels or to tax or cap carbon. The good news is the Transportation and Infrastructure Com- mittee is capable of taking the lead to reduce mobile greenhouse gases, minimize wasted fuel, and grow the economy and increase America’s global competitiveness. The key to this success is what I call a ″war on congestion.″ congestion is not inevitable; it can be reversed. As our current honorary chairman and former Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta says, it is not a scientific mystery, it is not a fact of life, nor is it an uncontrollable force. Congestion results from poor public policy choices and a failure to separate solutions that work and that are effective from those that are not. Fighting congestion also happens to be the most realistic and effective way to decrease pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and wasted fuel. That is because Americans overwhelmingly choose to travel by highway, shippers overwhelmingly choose to move freight by truck, and both will continue to do so, barring some economic collapse or massive contraction. To this end, this Committee should authorize a comprehensive data-driven national congestion relief program. Frankly, it is surprising that a data-driven program of this type doesn’t currently exist. We believe a core congestion relief plan would greatly reduce lagging support for the Federal Aid Highway Program and may even increase support for raising user fees to keep the program sol- vent and growing. Like the new data-driven Highway Safety Improvement Program authorized under SAFETEA-LU, a core performance-based congestion relief program would be a revolutionary advancement in the Federal program. Removing the Nation’s worse bottlenecks. Bottlenecks are loca- tions where highway demand exceeds capacity, and they represent about half of total congestion in this country. Improving the worst 203 bottlenecks, those with more than 700,000 hours of delay, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an astounding 390 mil-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 198 lion tons over 20 years, even after accounting for the increased emissions during construction. On average, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel usage at the worst bottlenecks would drop by a remarkable 77.2 percent, and over 20 years the amount of fuel saved would be more than 40 billion gallons; 48 billion vehicle hours of wasted time would be saved as well, along with over 220,000 injuries that would be avoided, and $470 billion in economic benefits that could be realized. The other 50 percent of congestion is really due to nonrecurring delays. These are delays caused by incidents on the road, or weather, and they can be addressed through increased support for operations planning, particularly intelligent transportation systems investments, the next generation of vehicle infrastructure integra- tion, which will allow cars and roads to communicate to divert traffic around congested sites. And I hope the Transportation and In- frastructure Committee will continue to significantly support these programs. I would like to briefly talk about the pitfalls I hope the Com- mittee will avoid. Unfortunately, it is a popular notion that reducing highway use is realistic and an advisable approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving fuel. Some advocates of this approach even promote punitive measures that create financial and time burdens, punishing highway users so that driving becomes more costly or congestion more severe. The goal is to force drivers to give up their cars and reduce their driving, but these approaches include diversion of dwindling supplies of highway user fees to off- highway purposes, congestion pricing, tolling, and opposition to new highway projects that add capacity. We contend that these so-called solutions are not only unlikely to succeed, but actually will damage the environment as well as the economy, despite the goal of protecting the environment, and that these programs are particularly damaging to working-class and dis- advantaged populations because, as the DLC study on welfare to work has shown, in most cases the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car. America’s highway users are ready to help. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prevent wasted fuel, we want to be part of the solution and we stand particularly ready to support congressional action to comprehensively fight traffic congestion. We believe this is the most realistic way to solve the problem. This approach is also one of the few direct actions Congress can take to reduce energy use and provide enormous benefits to drivers, consumers and the economy. Other approaches need to be considered carefully, but we ask that you really reject the punitive measures that highway users should be punished for driving or that highway user fees should be diverted from desperately needed projects. As every Member of this Committee knows, those road needs are overwhelming. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I will take your concerns into very serious consideration, as we are doing, and of course the hearings that Mr. DeFazio chaired in the hearings he is conducting as we prepare for the next authorization. I have a number of questions for each of the witnesses. We have a vote and there are minutes remaining. That is not so important

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 199 as there are 165 Members who haven’t voted yet. My rule of thumb is when it gets down to 100, then I leave my office for the House floor and I can make it in time for that vote. Mr. Lash, I want you to mull some of the thoughts that I began my statement with. The obvious things that are happening in the environment around us, the Arctic snow reflects sun, that it has a huge effect on heating of the sea. If you have snow-covered ice, it reflects 80 percent of the sun’s energy. Bare ice reflects 65 percent of the sun’s energy. Melt ponds, only 35 percent. Open water reflects less than 7 percent of the sun. And then you begin to absorb, and the water begins to absorb the sun’s energy; 93 percent absorption, that means the water is warming, the Arctic is warming, ice is melting, sea levels are rising. Dramatic, maybe irreversible, changes happening in that environment that affect the entire world. I want you to think about that. I am going to come back right after this. [Recess.] Mr. OBERSTAR. The Subcommittee will resume its sitting, and when we left for the votes I propounded some thoughts for Jona- than Lash. Would you like to respond? Mr. LASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer to what you were saying is ″yes.″ the Chair was describing what the scientists call the albedo affect. If you lose the reflective power of snow and ice, the warming goes more quickly; particularly when you are talking about sea ice, it is a profound change, and that is going very rapidly. It is one of a number of mechanisms where the effect of warming creates a feedback that accelerates the warming. It is like the melting of the tundra releasing methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so that in turn accelerates the warming. There is a whole set of physical mechanisms like that which scientists are concerned become much more serious at about 2 centigrade warming, so there is a consensus building that we ought to stop at 2 degrees centigrade. If we want to do that, that means we have to start thinking about reducing U.S. emissions by 60 to 80 percent in the next 30 to 40 years. It is a big task. We need to start. Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, the scientific environment in which we discussed this question of global climate change has with several international groups created a body of knowledge or developed a body of knowledge based on evidence from Greenland ice cores, not just a little scoop, but cores 2 miles deep. These go back hundreds of thousands of years. Last week at the opening of our hearing, I cited the work of Dr. Wallace Broker at Columbia University on the great ocean circulating current commonly known as the conveyor belt, which starts with a cold—I don’t need to lecture Mr. Lash about this but I will just regroup the issue—and that starts in the Arctic with dense cold water with high salinity content, and as it travels down past the coast of North and South America, travels into the Southern Pacific and through the Philippines and moves back, it loses its salinity, loses some of the cold water, tempers the Pacific Ocean, a vast river of water equal to the flow of all the rivers of the world

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 200 or all the rainfall of the entire globe on any given day measured in drip units. Then it brings that warmer water back, and, with a much more powerful effect on climate than the gulf stream, warms the British Isles and the European continent. Every 100,000 years or so, something has happened to the great ocean circulating current. Milutin Milankovich, the Serbian mathematician of the late 19th century, postulated that there is a tilt of the Earth’s inclination of less than one-half of 1 degree that occurs in that period of time, and possibly linked Scottish scientists to the bulging of the ocean at the Equator due to warming. The ocean expands, tilts, globe tilts, and then something happens, conveyor belt shuts down, and we have an Ice Age. Just the opposite of what people think about climate change, but over long periods of time. What are your thoughts about the direction in which climate change is taking us? Mr. LASH. Just to build on what the Chair said, the concern is that the natural process that has led to the great ocean conveyor shutting down could be replicated by the human-driven process of warming. And if you create melting of the Greenland ice sheet, you have fresh water coming down and diluting the very saline water. You have most warm air crossing the Greenland ice sheet and changing conditions above that northern ocean, and you stop this huge flow of water dropping down from the surface to 10,000 feet deep and that the conveyor might stop, and in historic terms it hasn’t stopped over a period of 500 years, it stopped over a couple of years. So it is quite sudden. There was just a major study released earlier this week in which scientists concluded that the pace of warming is warming northern Europe so fast that that is likely to largely offset the loss of warmth if the great ocean conveyor stops. So that rather than Eu- rope going into an ironic deep freeze when the rest of the world is getting hot, you will have somewhat of a more balanced process. But that doesn’t mean it is not important. What we are talking about is one of the three or four major drivers of weather systems on Earth, and of biologic systems, and we have no idea what the consequences are of stopping that. Mr. OBERSTAR. The question, then, I pose is these great long-last- ing forces in Earth processes, climate rather than weather, are difficult to slow down and to turn around. Unless there is some way of extracting carbon from the atmosphere, it is going to be there for a very long period of time, and the urgency of action is for us to deal with it now to moderate over a long period of time the presence of carbon. Is that right? Mr. LASH. That is absolutely right. The weather conditions that we are experiencing today are the result of decisions that were made a generation or two ago. The decisions we are making today won’t affect us, they will affect our children and their children. The weather system has so much momentum that if we stabilized the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere tomorrow morning, the temperature would go on rising for 30, 40, 50 years, and ocean temperatures and the expansion of the ocean would go on for longer than that.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 201 This is a very big system and it is going to turn around very slowly, but we are accelerating in the wrong direction. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Sobering thoughts for all of us why actions we take now will either benefit the next two generations or adversely affect them. Mr. Millar, that comes to you. I had, how shall I say, a positive experience, pleasure of riding a hydrogen bus in Santa Barbara a few years ago as a result of legislation that I included in ISTEA in 1991 to stimulate the production of fuel cell buses. It took a decade to develop, put on the road, but it actually was operating. They pulled it out of service now. What is the future of hydrogen buses, electric buses, which I also rode in Santa Barbara? I saw that they could climb hills just as smooth with a development of power as conventional bus service. You have testified to, and I have cited those numbers many times, that transit use is growing faster than population, much faster than population, two or three times faster than the population growth. So what is the future for alternative fuel bus services? Mr. MILLAR. Certainly bright. Let me give you a baseline as I understand it now. Almost 20 percent of the urban transit buses that are in service at the moment are alternately fueled or hybrid buses. 35 to 40 percent of the buses that are on order are also in those categories as well. So we are clearly heading to a situation that, in very short order, more than 50 percent of the transit buses will be alternately fueled or powered. When you look at a specific technology, for example, the fuel cell, for the last 15 years or so it has always been that we have been 7 years away from that becoming common. I sit here today to tell you we are at least 7 years away, still. It hasn’t gelled yet. But there are a number of cities—at the moment, the Coachella Valley, Palm Springs area of California is probably the lead in that area. But AC transit on the east bay of the San Francisco Bay area is experimenting with that. Others in the California area are as well. So I think it is still going to take a while. It does appear that the hybrid technology is a good interim step. We are getting significant savings in pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions. We are getting remarkable increases in energy efficiency out of it, doubling and tripling. So I would say we are making steady progress and improvement in those areas. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I will have other questions. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me compliment you for putting together a series of very important hearings about this very important problem. I told you earlier that I was pleased at how balanced the panels have been, first having in the hearing last Friday the top government officials, and now having witnesses from business, from industry associa- tions, from environmental groups. I want to compliment the witnesses not only for very informative and helpful testimony, but also because the common theme here of this panel—and I assume the panels to follow—is that all of these people seem to be doing everything they reasonably can to help out in this situation or help combat this problem.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 202 I do think that our best hope in combating global warming is to rely primarily on the free enterprise, free market system, because the worst polluters in the world have been the socialist and com- munist countries. And only in a free-enterprise, free-market system do you generate the excess funds to do the good things for the environment that everybody wants done. And one danger that we need to recognize is we don’t want to overregulate our economy in an overreaction to global warming so that we end up causing more harm to the environment than good that we do. I have noticed that some people who believe so strongly that global warming is the top problem, they become very angry, in fact hateful at times, about people who even dare to question them. So I want to express, I want to try to explain, the Chairman very wisely did not have opening statements except by him and the Ranking Member because he wanted to get to the witnesses, so I am going to use my time to express a few thoughts and concerns, as I have already done. I am going to read some quotes here that I think might help explain why some of us on our side are a little bit skeptical at times on some of this global warming/climate change issue. Richard Lindzen, who is a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, a few months ago wrote in the Wall Street Journal about what he called the alarmism and feeding frenzy surrounding the climate change/global warming debate. And he said this, quote: But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. Professor David Deming, a geophysist, said, quote: The media hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists who don’t understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific knowledge. Science changes. Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research wrote in the Washington Times, quote: The emotional politicized debate over global warming has produced a ″fire, ready, aim″ mentality, despite great and still growing scientific uncertainty about the problem. And he went on to say, quote: Still, climate alarmists demand a multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they are sure exists and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over in their favor and call their critics names such as deniers, as in Holocaust deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and for policymaking. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled. So I use those quotes just to show why there is still some uncertainty and some concern about this,, and I do appreciate—I will say once again—I think the balance that the Chairman is attempting to approach this issue. I think we probably need to do as much as we can on this. On the other hand, we don’t need extremism on this issue, we need balance and common sense. Some places global warming is apparently a really bad, maybe even terrible thing. Some places it may even be a good thing. Georgianne Geyer, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote a few

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 203 days ago—she said at one point in this column: In short, what they are talking about, still privately for the most part, is the idea that as the world continues to warm and the melting ice here bares se- crets long held, underneath Greenland’s huge mass could house gold, diamonds, even oil. The long dreamed-of Arctic route from Eu- rope and Russia to the American continent and beyond could become a reality. She gave many other examples that I won’t go into at this time. I think that we have had a very reasonable and fair hearing so far, and I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. And I guess I will come to questions, get to questions on my second opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for your always judicious and thoughtful remarks. I emphasize once again what we are seeking as we move to craft our part of what will be an energy package, we are looking at practical things that are within reach, that are doable now, using technology that has been demonstrated that in each piece can make a reasonable contribution to slowing down the emission of carbon into the atmosphere. I appreciate the gentleman’s observations on that, that we have balance and common sense. I am seeking that. Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? Mr. OBERSTAR. I certainly do. Mr. DUNCAN. I think that this Committee has done more than almost any other Committee in the Congress in helping to improve the environment by attempting to relieve congestion and also to encourage energy efficiency in this very big and growing and important segment of our economy. So I appreciate the work that you have done and this Committee has done on this issue in the past, far more than of most other Committees in the Congress. Mr. OBERSTAR. I agree with that. In the last 12 years, in a very bipartisan way, we have moved very good legislation. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop. Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming in late. The President’s budget request for fiscal 2008, if I remember cor- rectly, cut funding for transit programs by $200 million from what would have been authorized and what hopefully will still be authorized under SAFETEA- LU. I guess, Mr. Millar, this question is for you: What does that tell you about the administration’s commitment to seeing transit as a means of dealing with the issue of dependence on foreign oil and on global climate change? Mr. MILLAR. The President’s budget would underfund SAFETEA- LU guarantees by $309 million; 300 million of that would come out of the so-called new starts and small starts programs. Those are the parts of the Federal program that lead to the expansion and extension of public transit systems. We have argued consistently that now is not the time to cut back on Federal investment. I mentioned in my testimony that private investment that was made in Boston and in New York more than 100 years ago in the subway system is still giving benefit.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 204 So to perhaps achieve some short-term budgetary goals, we are sacrificing the long-term needs of the country if we take that approach. Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for that. I am pleased to observe that the budget resolution that the House passed, and hopefully will prevail in the conference report, carries forward SAFETEA-LU funding at the authorized level for fiscal 2008. Hopefully we will be moving in the right direction there. Mr. Hamberger, if I may, the percentage improvement in fuel efficiency that the railroad industry has realized is very impressive, 80 percent over the last 20 some years. What lessons are there for other industries—I mean for the airline industry, for the automobile industry? Are there any lessons, any best practices that can be derived from your success that could be applied to other industries? Mr. HAMBERGER. I appreciate that question. I wish I had a better answer. I think it not so much of a silver bullet as really working across all aspects of the industry and in conjunction and cooperation with the manufacturers who produce the locomotives and also with the freight car manufacturers who are helping to design better cars so that they are more aerodynamic, have less drag as they go along the rail. We have top-of-rail lubrication to cut down on friction, operating practices for the engineers to get the optimum use. So it is really a combination of factors and it is clearly something that we focus on. It is the second to the largest variable cost next to labor for the industry. So it is, I guess, a commitment to try and improve the fuel efficiency that would be, I guess, the overarching lesson. Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. One more question for Mr. Hall. The evolution hybrid locomotive which seems to hold great promise for the future, your projection is that approximately 10 percent—it will become approximately 10 percent of the annual locomotive market. Why not more? Just seems like such great technology. Is that just a very conservative estimate? Mr. HALL. Yes, Congressman. We really input that as a conservative estimate at this point. Feedback from customers, there is a lot of interest, but we don’t know exactly what the total sales projection would be. Mr. BISHOP. But you are prepared to meet whatever the market might demand? Mr. HALL. Absolutely. Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Mary- land, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Resident biologist. Mr. GILCHREST. Resident wannabe biologist. Don’t have a degree. Had a couple classes in college but just enjoy nature’s design. Mr. Lash, can you describe the difference between the ability of a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade to address our need to reduce greenhouse gases and what the costs and benefits of each are, in your view?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 205

Mr. LASH. Thank you, Congressman. I will take a crack at it. I will also supply you with a study that we did with Brookings, looking at some of those questions. The economists love the idea of a carbon tax because of its simplicity. It applies throughout the economy. It sends the economic signal of the importance of being more efficient in our use of energy throughout the economy with complete even-handedness. Very simple to administer and it generates a source of revenues which you can either use to lower other taxes or to invest in technologies. The difficulty with a carbon tax is you set a particular level of tax and then you get only as much reduction in CO2 emissions as the economy gives you back. A cap-and-trade system, you set a particular level of emissions and you know you will get that level of reduction. That is what you did with sulfur dioxide. You said we are going to make a 50 percent reduction; you knew you would get a 50 percent reduction. You allowed trading between sources of sulfur dioxide in order to reduce the costs. The difficulty with a cap-and-trade system is it is very difficult to apply it throughout the economy. You can’t apply it to every source. You have to choose larger sources for simplicity of administration, and you don’t have a guarantee about what the costs will be before you start. The group of companies that we worked with, the United States Climate Action Partnership, ended up recommending a cap-and- trade system because they feel that it is important to send the economy a big signal about changing technologies immediately. They want to know that they have to achieve certain levels of reduction because they are making billion-dollar investments in new technology. Mr. GILCHREST. So a CAP agrees that if the government sets the target, sets the goal, which is to set the cap, then the market—if the program was structured appropriately, then the market would set the price for the greenhouse gases. Mr. LASH. That is correct. You have the model of the sulfur dioxide program that you enacted in 1990. Very successful. The cost of a ton of sulfur dioxide, the cost of a ton of reduction for that program was predicted to be $1,600. Very expensive. Mr. GILCHREST. Given the fact—I guess we will come back, but we are running out of time for probably this silly vote, Mr. Chair- man—but given this is going to be economy-wide, going to deal with every single sector to one extent or another about the reduction of emissions, and given sulfur dioxide I think dealt with about 1,000 power plants, is there any way to predict in advance what the cost of a ton of CO2 is going to be? Mr. LASH. There are many models that are making predictions of the cost but I wouldn’t want to rely on any of them. I think there are programs you could enact that would enable you to test the price. Mr. GILCHREST. Do you think it is an essential part of the process we go through here to develop a cap-and-trade program to have some idea of the cost of a ton of CO2? Mr. LASH. Yes, I think you need to talk to a range of economists, they will give you a range of prices. You need to recognize that

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 206 none of us can be certain about it. I personally would not support some of the measures that are proposed; to have a safety valve, to say if the cost of a ton of CO2 goes above $10, that you add extra credits in, because I think that undermines the environmental effect of the cap. Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Mr. Chairman, I guess when we come back we can pursue other questions. Mr. OBERSTAR. We have a quorum call in progress now, with 6 minutes remaining. It is a most unusual occurrence. We haven’t had a quorum call in years on the House floor. It is like taking at- tendance in grade school. We will stand in recess and Ms. Napolitano will be next. [Recess.] Mr. OBERSTAR. With apologies to the present and future witnesses, Subcommittee will resume its hearing. It will be rather unpredictable this afternoon. Challenges on the floor. But we will do our best to persevere. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for your leadership in holding these hearings. This is a very important topic today, and as a representative from the State of Texas, I know a lot about energy, and I know a lot about extreme weather. And I know that the way we use energy and the types of energy that we use is going to have to change or else the weather is going to get worse for a whole lot of people. In 2005, a series of powerful hurricanes hit the United States. One of the most powerful of these was hurricane Rita. It crossed into southeastern Texas on September the 24th and wiped out a number of coastal communities, took the lives of many and caused over $11 billion in damages. Over 1 million people were forced to evacuate in the path of the storm. Costly and dangerous storms like Rita are what we might expect more frequently in the warming world. In other parts of Texas, we will face increased water shortages and droughts. Flash floods will be more frequent and tropical disease, such as malaria, may become more frequent as a warmer climate moves north. Contrary to what many might think, the State of Texas has actually been a leader when it comes to addressing climate change. The State government realizes the close connection between energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Texas has among the more forward-thinking energy policies in the country. In 1999, the Texas Public Utilities Regulatory Act was passed, and this law required Texas to increase its use of renewable energy sources that do not generate greenhouse gases. As a result, Texas has been on a rush to generate wind power; 3 to 4 percent of Texas’s energy needs are expected to come from wind in 2010, up from less than 1 percent in 1999. The irony of this Texas policy is that it was signed into law by then Governor Bush. Unfortunately, the President has not been quite as forward thinking over the past 6.5 years in Washington. As a result, it is now time for us, the Congress, to step in and take action on the very important issues of climate and energy. I look

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 207 forward to working with the Chairman, to moving forward on this point and with this Committee. Today’s hearing will be valuable as the witnesses will provide us with numerous suggestions of proposals to increase our energy independence while at the same time decreasing the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. I look forward to hearing the testimony. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman I guess I was supposed to ask a question following my statement. This is to Mr. Lash. Given the abundance of coal in the United States, what are the negative ramifications of liquid coal as a fuel source? Mr. LASH. The use of coal to make liquid fuels is not new. Ger- many did it in World War II. Switzerland did it in World War II. South Africa did it when they were isolated. It takes significant energy to turn coal into liquid fuel. The use of that energy creates additional CO2 emissions. So if you dig coal, make it into liquid fuel, you create CO2 emissions when you are converting it and then again when it is burned in an engine to drive a car or a truck. It is possible to capture the CO2 from the conversion of coal to liquids and store it underground, a technology which has been demonstrated but not in commercial scale, but at considerable cost. Then what you would end up with is the equivalent of very, very expensive gasoline. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. More expensive than we have now? Mr. LASH. Oh, yes, ma’am. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witnesses have been here for a long time. I thank you for your testimony. I will make this relatively short. I know that there certainly are benefits that rail does show in terms of reducing energy usage, but I think public transportation is probably the most useful place that we can make real changes to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases. I want to focus, especially during the bike-to-work week, Mr. Clarke, I am also a, I am a member of the LAB, and you know, I want to thank the Chairman for all the work that he has done on trying to move us forward in allowing people to use their bikes to get around, to get to work. You know it can make a big difference. So many of the trips that we make are such short distances, and they certainly can be done on a bike. Unfortunately, go over to Europe and also in Asia and you see the tremendous usage of bikes for transportation is very, very common. I have real questions about how much—how far we can actually get in doing this. Certainly, we can do a lot more than we have, and what Chairman Oberstar has been able to get into transportation bills, including SAFETEA-LU, if we can get more money appropriated, certainly that will be very helpful. But one thing I just want to pick out from your testimony here, you are saying that Congress should direct GSA to make Federal Government a model employer in promoting bicycling and walking

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 208 to work. How exactly do you see that being done? Because I think that, in a lot of ways, the government needs to be a leader when we are talking about changes that we can make to impact energy usage. But I want to—I wanted to hear what you specifically think can be done by the GSA. Mr. CLARKE. Thank you for the question. There are numerous examples of corporations across the country that have tried a variety of different techniques to encourage people to ride their bikes to and from work. They range from simply providing decent bicycle parking, showers, locking, changing facilities, to going much further and providing mentoring programs, credit for someone to buy a bike, route mapping and assistance in finding routes to help people take routes to and from work, to improving the physical infrastructure around the workplace, to improve acces by putting in bike lanes and trails and working with the local community to do that, to providing fleets of bicycles on larger campuses and work sites so people can better travel in and between buildings in a campus setting. So there is a range of different incentives, different infrastructure, different promotional programs and even tax incentives that are available to encourage people to at least occasionally ride to work. Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you have any studies that you have commissioned or that you know what the cost would be, that you think would be associated with GSA doing some of these things? Mr. CLARKE. It would very much depend on the scale, and I think you would have to begin by finding that out, as has been done through a program called the Travel Smart Program, which is an individualized marketing program that first asks people real- istically what percentage of the workforce lives and works within a reasonable cycling distance, what needs they have for carrying things to and from work that might preclude them from riding. But once you have found a population that can feasibly switch to a bike, you have a better sense of what kind of investment will be necessary. The cost of a bike parking rack is $75. Simply putting in a few of those in most work places would be an enormous step forward. If every post office in the country had good bike parking and a good bike access to and from, it would go a long way towards enabling people to make those kinds of errands and trips by bike. So it does not have to be a very expensive endeavor. There are communities that require new buildings as they are developed to accommodate cyclists and also runners and other people taking exercise with showers and lockers and changing facilities. That is something which can be done up front in the cost of a new building in the development code that would be very forward thinking. Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I know there was an issue in Min- neapolis airport about someone who rode their bike there and didn’t have a place to put it and winded up getting it taken away. Simple things can make a difference. Thank you. Mr. CLARKE. I think the Chairman knows that story very well. Mr. OBERSTAR. Not only that, the traveler came back to find his bike cut in pieces. So I mobilized the bicycling community in Min- neapolis to repair the bike, restore it to its original condition. He

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 209 got a new bicycle seat and other new parts for the bike and that is where the idea for bicycle parking facilities authorized in the next FAA authorization has come from. Here is this guy trying to do the right thing. He rides to the airport at 3 o’clock in the morning when there is no transit. Come on. Let’s do the right thing. Ms. Napolitano, we do have a vote on the floor, but we have plenty of time—not a vote. It is a quorum call. A nuisance action. Ms. Napolitano. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to see the diversity in the panels. And I have about 100 questions, and I am only going to be able to ask 1 or 2. As I have said before and during comments in this Committee, I have one of the most used quarters in my area. Pollution to me is an every day life. I have the City of Pico Rivera who not too long ago was the number one polluted city in the whole State of California, so I understand the pollution. And I have been trying to figure out how do we incentivize more trucks to change into diesel or the mechanism to allow for less production of pollutants. One of the things, the statement that I want to make is that during the Olympics in Los Angeles, the Ford Motor Company I was employed by went to nighttime delivery. Works well. They are still using it. Why are we not incentivizing some of the companies to look at other alternative methods besides, as we well know, day- time, the sunlight causes for pollutants? Why not incentivize telecommuting? People have computers. Why aren’t we looking at all of the other solutions besides the normal ones we can think of? I would love to see all the three big manufacturers of automobiles in California go to hybrid. They haven’t. We should be able to incentivize those companies to produce hybrids so that we can cut that pollution. And then California had a program not too long ago, about 10 years ago, where we paid for old cars so that they wouldn’t pollute. I forget what the amount was, $1,000, I can’t remember, old vehicles. All of the other things that we know can help, what is it that collectively you can suggest besides what we have been discussing, all the different things, railroad, going to newer diesel burning engines, more effective? All those things that we talk about, what else can we do to be able to ask the Federal Government to participate, whether it is GSA or anybody else, Federal agencies that have a part in this, what can we do collectively? Anybody. Mr. MILLAR. Certainly, in my testimony, I talked about many things. We can certainly use the Tax Code to incentivize. We can take the unfairness out where free parking gets a larger tax break than if someone uses transit, and if they use bicycles, they don’t get any break at all. So there is certainly a matter of leveling the field. We need to expand options for people. People can’t use what they don’t have, so we need to make sure that we fully fund the transit program, go beyond fully funding if we can and make sure that communities are able to expand their systems. We need to do things like the President has proposed to encourage buying of hybrid buses, the waiving of certain local match requirements. Well, that is fine as far as it goes, but with a limited amount of money, it actually decreases the amount of total money State, Federal, local that gets invested. So setting up a new pro-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 210 gram that encourages people to buy new hybrids, companies to buy new hybrid buses for example and pay for it, doesn’t require a local match. Those kind of things. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? Mr. Rader. Mr. RADER. Yes, I think the local match problem is a very serious problem and one that needs to be addressed. I think, most importantly, FTA issues funding today without any consideration about whether or not the vehicle being purchased is fuel efficient, whether or not—they measure in great detail the return on the investment, the numbers of riders, and nowhere in the formula is how much fuel is this going to burn over the next 30 years? What is the payback? I think that is something we need to get in, and we will have an immediate effect. In the City of Los Angeles, something like 50 percent of the commuter trains are 3 bilevel cars and a 275,000 pound locomotive. Appropriate technology would cut the fuel burned by 60 percent and would cut the emissions by nearly 70 percent, by just going to appropriate technology that is available today, for those half of the trains that are just three cars and locomotive. So there are a lot of things we can do in I think the very short term, and it doesn’t take 20 years to fix that. Those locomotives are going to come up for a rebuild. Put appropriate technology in. Ms. NAPOLITANO. And incentivze to be able to purchase them. Mr. RADER. Absolutely, absolutely and another thing, when we are looking at new starts, we are forever being inquired of by people who want to do new starts. Could we lease equipment? Well, in today’s environment, there is no incentive to lease. There is no incentive for a private company to come out and lease, and when they are competing with FTA funding for expansion, the answer is, no, you can’t afford to lease. If we could come up with a proper tax program that puts some incentive for private people to supply equipment into this market and help supplement the new starts market, I think we could go a long way with lease equipment and Tax Code and FTA problem. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Are you suggesting that maybe we have a specific bill to address incentives to be able to achieve what we are all looking for? Mr. RADER. I think that would certainly be one way to do it, yes, ma’am. I think the other might be to simply incorporate it into some of the new authorizing legislation as we are moving forward. Either one. My concern about the latter is that it gets so big, we don’t get anywhere; whereas if we can do it a little piece at a time, we can get there quicker because we can get general agreement across the board on it. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to submit some questions for the record. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, questions will be submitted for the record and let me ask the witness to respond. We have 4-plus minutes remaining. Mr. Gilchrest, do you have some questions you would like to ask at this point? There are 324 Members who have not, quote, voted. Mr. GILCHREST. I like your calculations, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, I have a couple of questions if I could get them through.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 211 Mr. Millar, I was talking to Mr. Lash about a cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax on reducing greenhouse gas overall in a pretty wide-ranging economy-wide program. And I think I am beginning to hear that a cap-and-trade program, as opposed to the carbon tax, is something that, if the Federal Government sets the goal, the market could adjust to a mechanism that was appropriate. Can you give me some idea of how you think a cap-and-trade program would affect the transportation industry and how could we best—or you best—or all of us best position a cap-and-trade program to benefit the transportation system? Mr. MILLAR. First, let me state, I am not expert on cap-and- trade, but I am rapidly learning about it. And we do believe that cap-and-trade has a very significant place in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We think public transit services, which already are energy and greenhouse gas efficient compared to private automobiles, should participate in that. We think that the cap-and- trade could be a source of money, private sector money, that would be put into investing in public transportation, into encouraging people to use public transportation, thus by saving even additional energy and greenhouse gas emissions. We are working right now a report I hope I can make available to the Committee by mid- summer that is going to examine some of those issues that relate specifically to public transit. But we think there is a lot of good there, and we are strong supporters of it. Mr. GILCHREST. That same investment in public transportation—could that be an investment to the automobile industry to create better gas mileage, hybrid cars, those kinds of things? Mr. MILLAR. Again, I am certainly not an expert on all the extent of it, but it would certainly seem reasonable, what you said. Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, very much. Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee—are there any witnesses at the table who need to leave for some urgent purpose, like eating or— I know Mr. Duncan has some questions that he wants to pose. And I have just a few sort of bullet points to establish for the record. And I do want to say, these are important because we are going to fashion, in the end of this month and month of June, our portion of the energy package that the House leadership is bringing together across Committee lines, and so all of your comments and those of last week are very important for us as we move forward. The Committee will stand in recess. [Recess.] Mr. OBERSTAR. Subcommittee will resume sitting, and Mr. Dun- can is next. Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know you want to get on with the other panel, so I will just be very brief, but the staff has asked that I ask unanimous consent that they be permitted to submit their questions to all the witnesses following this hearing. Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. DUNCAN. All right, Hamberger, I have heard at times in the past that most of your, or some of, your members use a billion dollars or more fuel or oil in a year. And I just wondered, how much oil or how much fuel are they using now typically on average, and how does that compare say to 10 years ago?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 212

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, the best information I have is that, in 2005, we burned 4.2 billion gallons of fuel. I believe that is more than the United States Navy. It is the second, as I said, the second largest variable cost for the industry. And as my testimony pointed out, if we had not made the progress that we have since 1980, we would have been burning an additional 3.3 billion gallons of fuel in 2005—I am sorry, that is 2006—I correct myself, not 2005; that is 2006 we would have burned an additional 3.3 billion gallons of fuel. Mr. DUNCAN. An additional 3.3 billion, and I assume that you are carrying much more tonnage now than you were in 1980 or—— Mr. HAMBERGER. Absolutely correct, 2006 was the record year for freight. Mr. DUNCAN. So you are carrying much more tonnage or much more in goods for really quite a reduction in energy costs. Mr. Cohen, what difference do you think it would make if the Congress was able to change some of the CMAQ eligibility rules so they could apply to highway capacity projects? Many of the traditional highway projects are not eligible for CMAQ funding. Mr. COHEN. That is right. Currently, the CMAQ program does not allow highway capacity outside of HOV lanes to be eligible. I believe HOV lanes are eligible under CMAQ. The congestion relief program that I would envision would allow full eligibility for anything, whether it be a highway investment, a transit investment, road building or an ITS, but that would be a performance-based program in which in order to use these funds or—it really has to be worked out because I don’t want to create a whole bunch of new layers of planning process for this. So I would like to work it out with you. But what I envision is that an improved CMAQ program or a completely new congestion relief program be created that allows full application of any solution available provided that it give you the most bang for the buck. And in my view, bottle-neck relief, which is not currently eligible under CMAQ, would be a very big bang for the buck type set of projects to look at and should be eligible. Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Lash, in one of our morning publications that we receive here, I don’t remember whether it was Congress Daily or the CQ Today, but one of those just a few days ago, I think last week, maybe a week before last, said that farmland had its biggest increase ever over the past year, had gone up 22.5 percent, not every place of course, but they said part of it was due to inflation. Part of it was due to farmland close into the cities becoming more valuable, but that most of it was due to the ethanol craze or whatever you might want to call it. Yet I saw an energy expert on tele- vision Friday night that said that ethanol costs about as much in energy use as it does in energy that it saves. And I notice that you have mentioned something about that in your testimony, yet, of course, ethanol—we can produce a lot of ethanol domestically where we can’t supply all of our oil needs. Is ethanol the answer and the solution that a lot of people seem to think it is? Mr. LASH. Congressman, I don’t think it is, at least not corn- based ethanol as it is produced now. The problem that you raise is exactly right. For the most part, corn-based ethanol is made now

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 213 using natural gas and because of that, the benefits in terms of reduced CO2 emissions are quite small, depending on the technology. There are huge benefits to farmers. I have a house on Chesapeake Bay, and there are fields being planted with corn that I have never seen planted before. And it is a great thing for farmers. There certainly are opportunities to make ethanol that would be of much more a benefit from a climate point of view, using cel- lulosic ethanol technologies that are still a few years off before it is commercial. And we are getting some energy independence benefit from the current production of corn-based ethanol. There is an energy benefit since it is a domestic source. Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, very much. Mr. Hall, you have heard, you may have heard my statement earlier in which I said that I think that if we allow the free enterprise, free market system to work, that we will solve many of these problems, that we can really do more that way than through the government. And I was very impressed by the energy that you are producing from dynamic braking, and I did not know about that. I was told that is also being done in cars and buses and so forth. And you know, I said, well, somebody a lot smarter than me came up with that, but, boy, I think that is an amazing sign of progress. And I think that if we allow the free enterprise system to work, that the genius of that system will do more than almost anything to help us with the problems we are talking about here today. But we need to get on to the next panel, and you all have been here far too long, but I just want to say I appreciate your patience. I appreciate your testimony. You have been very, very helpful to us. Thank you. Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur with the gentleman’s remarks about the helpfulness and patience of this panel. We are likely to have a batch of additional votes. I would just pick up on Mr. Duncan’s comments about ethanol. The first ethanol plant in the State of Minnesota was built in my district. Yet it now has moved to complete recycling of material using recyclables to fuel the plant so it is no longer dependent on fossil fuel to operate an ethanol facility. And the by-product of producing ethanol is a filter cake that is high protein feed for cattle and now has achieved a 1.6-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. And other plants are moving. But, as Mr. Lash pointed out, there is a finite limit to corn production, even using marginal lands which will require more nutri- ents and more limestone to apply to acid soils to make them pro- ductive. Switch grass, my colleague from Minnesota, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, points out is a native grass, has three cycles, it has a three-crop production capacity, is perennial, does not need to be reseeded and produces 900 gallons of ethanol per acre compared to 600 gallons per acre for corn-based ethanol. And as this farm bill moves through, there will be an incentive to moving to switch grass. And all of these, these are all pieces, each piece that we add reduces our dependence on foreign- sourced oil. Mr. Hamberger, your testimony cited great efficiencies, huge progress. You do mention switching locomotives. How many of the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 214 member railroads of your association are using Green Goats, as they are affectionately called in the switch yards, using biofuels? And what has been the effect of moving to the Green Goat technology? Mr. HAMBERGER. I don’t really have that data on the top of my head. I would like to respond for the record, but it is the Green Goats, but it is also the Genset, where they have as many as three different engines in the locomotive so that when you are moving, doing switching and moving a car or two, you are not using all 4,000 or 2,500 horsepower; you are using just that amount of motive power that is necessary. In addition, we have the alternative power units which we sit on the side of the locomotive, and in cold Minnesota, for example, in February, if you turn the engine off, the viscosity would get such that you could freeze up so you have to keep it running while these alternative power units do that in a much more fuel efficient way, and so that kind of technology is moving throughout all of the members. I don’t have the specifics on the Green Goat. Mr. OBERSTAR. I have seen from one or two of your members, their promotion pieces on Green Goat technology and using technology soybean-based fuel that has relatively small or negligible particulate discharge, NO, SO2 or NOX, and is more friendly to neighbors of switch yards. Mr. HAMBERGER. We have been doing a lot of research on that down on the Texas transportation center, and I think part of that is with the suppliers as well. And a couple of issues have popped up, one of which is, how does that work again in cold climates? It is not always as effective, and there are also some issues with the warranties with the manufacturers. [Information follows:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 215

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.157 216

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have spoken in the past of, and your various principals have spoken, about needs for tax credits to make further investments. Would you submit for the Committee record to be shared on both sides their recommendations for legislative initiatives as we—whether they are within the jurisdiction of this Com- mittee or not—we can recommend those to be done by others, for a legislative initiative that we are going to put together? Mr. HAMBERGER. Very pleased to do so, and as I did mention in my opening statement; that is, H.R. 2116, introduced by Congress- man Meek and Congressman Cantor, that is pending. The bill has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee. [Information follows:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 217

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.158 218

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like sort of an order of priority suggestion to the Committee. Mr. Clarke, I have known Andy Clarke since he first emigrated here from England. He has pretty much lost his British accent, which I don’t know what effect it has on his working relationship with Americans; they would always bow to a British accent. But he has certainly been a very effective advocate. My goal for bicycling is to establish it as a mode of transportation, not just a fun thing to do or, as I mostly do, for fitness. But also in my capacity, I ride to promote bicycling as a mode of transportation, and to encourage others to do it. And I do these promotional rides both in my district and elsewhere around the country. My 2,800 miles a year a couple of years ago is declining as I have more responsibilities and fewer morning hours and fewer weekends to devote to it. But about bicycling, what do you recommend that—I have sent a letter to Secretary Peters asking her to include that in the de- partmental initiative. What else do you suggest we do in that regard? Mr. CLARKE. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized funding for a study and a series of demonstration projects, as you know, to determine what the most effective ways are of achieving this switch from cycling—from car trips to bicycling trips. The funding needs to be appropriated. And if there were some way that, either through the appropriations process or by the encouragement being given to the Department of Transportation to find the relatively small amount of money, just $6.2 million, in their existing budget, it would go a long way towards providing some terrific examples and to disseminate the best practices that exist and can be created; to show how, through encouragement and education programs, people can be encouraged to switch modes and to find the appropriate technology for certain trips. Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, switching modes is eminently doable. In Munster, Germany, a city of 250,000 people, which was leveled by the Allies in World War II in retaliation for Coventry—the city has been rebuilt. It is on the German-Dutch border, northwest of the Netherlands; has bicycle mode share 48 percent, nearly half of all trips for all purposes, parking for 4,000 bicycles in the city center. The mayor rides to work every day, rain, snow, shine, on bicycle. They have a 20-foot head start at intersections for bicycles over automobiles. They have a 20-second head start at signaled intersections in addition to the 20-foot headstart for bicycles. Makes a big difference. We can do that in cities in the United States. That is why we have the nonmotorized transportation pilot project in four cities that have been designated in SAFETEA-LU. We are moving in that right direction, but your numbers right on the Netherlands is roughly 30 percent; Denmark is 20 percent mode share for bicycling. And for those relatively short trips, we can make it safe, and we can make it efficient. And we just need to continue every—we have to use squeeze every practical realistic opportunity to cut the carbon out of the atmosphere so that projections that Mr. Lash and others and serious scientists have made aren’t proven true; that we cut them off, delay them off into the future.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 219 Mr. Cohen, what do you mean by data-driven congestion relief programs? Mr. COHEN. What I mean is basically for you to authorize programs with incentives for cost-per-ton of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions as a factor in project selection. I think if you do that, and you look at the actual cost per ton of pollution removed, whether it be a pollutant that is a criteria pollutant or carbon dioxide, you will find that, on the basis of just biggest bang for the buck, you will have a very significant amount of that funding going to congestion relief projects. And I think, as the CMAQ program was intended to do, it would both solve congestion problems and air quality problems. But you can’t just say, well, all these things are eligible except for highways and not have a performance basis to it. If you add the performance requirement and make anything eligible and reward those who do the best job, then I think that is the kind of data-driven performance-based program that I would like to see. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. There are—that opens some opportunities for to us work on as we move to a legislative package. Mr. Rader, you say that electric vehicles are not zero pollution; they use electricity generated principally by fossil fuels, but the diesel multiple-unit train does produce electricity and does produce fewer or lower total emissions. Mr. RADER. It is a very interesting finding there was just a paper published, peer-reviewed paper published by the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board, the double-deck clean diesel DMU in an environment like Denver where we generate our power in the same basin that we run the train, actually has fewer emissions than an electric vehicle because of course we have the emissions right there, right next door. And an electric vehicle frequently is a pollution transfer device. If I am in Southern Cali- fornia, I get to move my pollution to Arizona. But it is a very interesting study. The cost emissions per seat mile from the new clean diesel are actually lower than those of the electricity generated to drive a heavy electric rail system. Mr. OBERSTAR. So what do we need to move that technology forward? Mr. RADER. We are doing it today. I think the key is now that through the direction of Congress, the FRA-funded demonstration project, people are now seeing it run. We are in an industry that does not adopt new things easily. Now, that it is out running, we see another year or two approving, I think you are going to see pretty universal adoption. We have 17 agencies that we are working with today who would like to see clean diesel DMU technology in the next 10 years. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. Hall, once we achieve the—when science and engineering achieves breakthroughs, people sort of plateau and think, well, that is the limit, just as with the GE 90, now GE has produced much more powerful aircraft engines. What is the next step in technology and how widespread will be the use of the breakthroughs that you cited in your testimony, Mr. Hamberger cited in his testimony?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 220

Mr. HALL. I think what we have in our plans to run forward is a combination of technologies that we can apply to improve the engine by itself and then more of these overall sort of control system strategies that we can use to reduce emissions and fuel consumption for the total locomotive system. So hybrid is just one example of that. The trip optimizer is another example. There is an enormous amount of braking energy that can be re- covered from these large trains. These two technologies only tap into a portion of it. There is still a lot more to be had, and we will continue to work on that. Mr. OBERSTAR. The weight of the vehicles is also—weight of locomotives and weight of the passenger cars are a detriment to efficiency because they are pulling so much weight. When the French achieved their world speed record, 358 miles per hour steel-on-steel passenger rail in April, just the day before our Committee Mem- bers traveled on the TGB from Brussels to Paris, 185 miles per hour, also in lighter rail cars, 3 minutes apart, all day long, 1,100 passengers, 94 percent load factors, extraordinary accomplishment, all requirements for heavier rail cars are safety based. Is it possible for to us change those standards, still protect safety, reduce the weight of locomotives and passenger cars and achieve these efficiencies? Mr. Hall? Mr. Hamberger? Mr. Millar? Mr. RADER. I can certainly speak to that because we spend a lot of time in Maglev study, and the answer is, yes and no. The yes part of the answer is, if we provide a dedicated right-of-way for passenger service, such as is provided for the TGA and for the Shinkansen, then the answer is absolutely yes. But as long as we are going to use the existing rail systems that are interconnected and we are running heavier trains on them, then the answer is no. We can’t make a safe car substantially lighter. With one exception, we are currently studying crash energy management technologies that are used in Europe and in part of the trains in Japan. And that may lead us to some lightening, but not terribly significant. Mr. OBERSTAR. Much depends on the system in which the rails are operating. Mr. RADER. Absolutely. If we were to spend per passenger mile in the United States for rail what is spent on the road bed in either Japan or France, given distances that we have, there is not enough money in the Federal budget. I think that is the big challenge we face. We have to face the realities that we have much longer distances, many more miles, many more grade crossings to protect, et cetera. It could be done, but the cost is enormous. Mr. OBERSTAR. In that spirit, Mr. Hamberger, let me ask you the hard question. Commuter rail access to freight rail track, what I hear from local governments repeatedly, is the impediment to improved commuter rail service. Gaining access to freight rail tracks may entail double tracking where there is only single track or sidings. Now, without mentioning individual railroads, there have been some that have been very cooperative and very responsive to commuter rail interests. And others have dragged their feet. In most cases, it has been very difficult to work it out. What do you think we should do to ease the burden of access?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 221

Mr. HAMBERGER. You won’t be surprised to me hear me say that I find that all of my members are forthcoming in this regard and that, in fact, I believe the number Mr. Millar used at a hearing on this issue a couple of years ago was 400 million trips a year. And I like to characterize that as 400 million opportunities where we have cooperated around the country, and it really is on all the Class I railroads that have entered into bilateral arm’s length agreements with the local authorities. And I think the discussion you were just having with Mr. Rader about what was happening in Europe and what is happening in Japan, if you take a look at Europe, because you have been there, you know that they move less than 10 percent of their freight by rail. They have a pretty good passenger system, but they have not a very good freight rail system. Mr. OBERSTAR. In fact, freight rail is operating on the passenger rails. Mr. HAMBERGER. You cannot have, in my opinion, a high-speed passenger rail system operating on a freight rail system. And so when it comes to commuter rail, I think the answer is, there has to be enough capacity for both. You do not achieve your clean air goals, congestion mitigation goals, fuel saving goals, by getting people out of their cars onto commuter rails while at the same time you are getting those UPS trucks back on the highway instead of riding double stack on the back of the rail car. Mr. OBERSTAR. The answer has to be intermodal. Mr. HAMBERGER. The answer has to be intermodal, and the answer has to be enough capacity for both. Mr. OBERSTAR. And in building more capacity. Finally—— Mr. HAMBERGER. Which I might add would be accomplished by H.R. 2116, which we encourage. Mr. OBERSTAR. We are going to work on that. Mr. Lash, the emissions trading, preserving a rain forest in Ec- uador in order for a power plant in Ohio to continue its energy production, as cited as an example of success and advancing the cause of freezing carbon emissions, but it is not advancing the cause in my—as I see it. What are your thoughts about emissions trading regimes, such as that the European community wants to do in aviation, for example? Mr. LASH. There are many forms of very legitimate emissions trading. You created an SO2 trading system in 1990 that has worked very well. The Europeans are now trading carbon on the European carbon exchange, and that is reducing the cost for them of meeting their obligations. The idea that you can include in that system offsets from avoided deforestation seems to me not legitimate at this time. We don’t have agreed-upon rules even of what you would count for avoided deforestation. It is a great way to avoid deforestation. It is not a great way to avoid global warming. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, each of you for your very thoughtful and sobering comments and for your extraordinary patience in being with us throughout this day. If you have any further suggestions or recommendations for our Committee to consider in formu- lating legislative initiatives, we would welcome those. Thank you very much.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 222 Our next panel on public buildings includes the American Insti- tute of Architects, Mr. R. K. Stewart; American Council For an En- ergy Efficient Economy, Mr. William Prindle; Alliance to Save En- ergy, Jeff Harris; Solar Energy Industries Association, Mr. Chris- topher O’Brien. And we will be in recess for about 15 minutes pending this vote and a subsequent vote on the House floor. [Recess 3:00 p.m.] Ms. NORTON. [presiding] As you can see, a madhouse has gone mad. So I am going to have to ask that we proceed as expeditiously as possible with brief opening statements so that we can move through this very important panel. If you have been here previously, you will understand that our Committee—each of its Subcommittees is, of course, involved in the effort of the Full Committee to design energy policy that affects our Committee, and our Committee is centrally affected in many ways. I am Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and therefore have a special interest in Panel II. We will be submitting a number of proposals; I already have a number of proposals. I will be especially interested in your ideas to enhance and add to my own. I am pleased to welcome all of you. I apologize for the delay, of which I must assure you we had no notice. It doesn’t come from our side, I might add. I intend to proceed as quickly as possible. Please summarize your statements. And I am going to ask you to proceed, I suppose beginning with Mr. Stewart. TESTIMONY OF R.K. STEWART, FAIA, PRESIDENT, THE AMER- ICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; WILLIAM PRINDLE, EXEC- UTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY EF- FICIENT ECONOMY; JEFF HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; AND CHRIS O’BRIEN, CHAIRMAN, SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIA- TION Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am R.K. Stewart, President of the American Institute of Architects, and on behalf of our 81,000 members and the 281,000 Americans who work for ar- chitecture firms nationwide, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I would like to share the thoughts of our Nation’s architects on energy consumption and how it relates to the most overlooked sector in the greenhouse gas debate, buildings: the buildings in which our people live, work, and play. I have submitted written testimony to the Committee but would like to stress those points the AIA feels are most important. The AIA believes strongly that now is the time to react to address climate change by tackling energy use in buildings. Our Nation needs to begin making significant reductions in the amount of fossil fuel- generated energy our buildings consume. As your Committee has jurisdiction over the Public Building Service of the General Serv- ices Administration, this Committee is in a unique position to make policy decisions that could result in new and renovated Fed- eral buildings using far less energy than current buildings. According to the Department of Energy, buildings and their construction are responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. every year. The building sector alone accounts for

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 223 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than either the transportation or industry sectors. Building operations consume 71 percent of U.S. electrical production and buildings in the United States account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Put another way, U.S. buildings account for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions as the economies of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom combined. If we want to be serious about energy use reductions, buildings must become a significant part of the discussion. The AIA believes that architects must advocate for the sustainable use of our Earth’s resources. We have adopted an official position establishing energy reduction targets in buildings. Architects across the country have embraced this position and are expanding the use of design practices that enhance design quality as they increase the environmental performance of buildings. To truly revolutionize the way our Nation designs and uses buildings, a combination of regulations and incentives must be used to greatly reduce fossil fuel-generated energy use, and improved energy efficiency nationwide. The AIA strongly urges Con- gress to take the lead in fighting against climate change by establishing new energy consumption standards for Federal buildings. The AIA recommends that Federal agencies be required to immediately ensure that new buildings and buildings undergoing major renovations consume no more than half the fossil fuel energy that a similar Federal building constructed in 2003 would consume. Be- ginning in 2010, agencies should be required to meet a declining cap on energy consumption such that they meet minimum energy reductions compared to the 2003 baseline. We propose that by 2010, new and significantly renovated Fed- eral buildings be required to reduce fossil fuel-generated energy by 60 percent. By 2015 the cap should be lowered to 70 percent reduction, continuing until 2030 when we should achieve 100 percent reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy for all new Federal buildings. Setting declining caps on energy use is not a new idea. In the past Congress has passed similar legislation, and recently Gov- ernor Bill Richardson of New Mexico established energy reduction targets in his State. Energy reduction requirements have shown a record of success, as referenced in my written testimony. That record demonstrates that the AIA-recommended energy reduction targets are readily achievable. There is increasing evidence confirming that the public is concerned about how we are able to reduce the use of fossil fuels in our buildings. They increasingly believe it is in the best interest of our Nation and the planet to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel-generated energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in Federal buildings would be a major step in redesigning the future and point the way for the private sector. We encourage Congress to consider our proposal and I welcome your questions and thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today. Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Prindle.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 224

Mr. PRINDLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Prindle. I am the Acting Execu- tive Director of the American Counsel for an Energy Efficient Econ- omy. We are a national nonprofit organization based here in the District that advances energy efficiency for energy security, economic prosperity, and environmental protection. I am pleased for the chance to share our thoughts with you. The theme of my testimony today is that energy efficiency should be used as the first fuel in America’s race for a clean and secure energy future. We face unprecedented energy challenges as we enter this new century. Conventional energy markets, especially for oil, have shifted such that the era of cheap fossil fuel energy is over. The global warming challenge is going to further force us to change our energy use patterns. Now, energy efficiency is one of the very few resources that addresses both energy security and global warming while also boost- ing economic prosperity. We can develop domestic energy supplies with low carbon content, but that is going to take time. So we can and we must start now to accelerate efficiency investment. Every clean energy strategy that you can imagine, whether it is based on renewable energy or advanced coal or safe nuclear, depends on energy efficiency to succeed. As we study the markets today we find that energy demand is growing too fast for any realistic supply plan to catch up. So our first job is to make policy that accelerates efficiency investment. Energy efficiency is actually an infrastructure issue. We happen to be blessed in this country with a massive energy service infrastructure. When I say that, I am not talking about the supply infrastructure; I am not talking about refineries and pipelines and power plants. That is the supply infrastructure. I am talking about the millions of energy using systems in our vehicles, our buildings, in our factories. People tend to think of energy efficiency as little things, light bulbs, thermostats, things we can see and touch. But our research estimates that we spend as a Nation about $200 billion annually on energy efficient technologies. And as close as we can account, we only spend about 100 billion on all the energy supply infrastructure in this country in a given year. So we spend more money on energy efficiency on all those lighting systems, motors, windows, all the components of our buildings and factories and vehicles that use energy, we spend more on that than we do on the whole supply side. So it is big business. It is a big part of our economy. It is surprising to a lot of people. But, in fact, energy efficiency is one of the prime engines of economic growth in the United States. We use half as much energy per unit of economic output than we did when I came into this field 30 years ago. If we had not made those gains, our economy would not have been able to sustain the prosperity that we have seen in these recent decades. And even though we have made a lot of progress, we still have enormous potential to accelerate efficiency investment. We estimate in the range of another $200 billion every year. That is a big infrastructure investment that we can make and we need to make.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 225 There are numerous studies about this. We do some, there are others, and consistently what we find in the research is that we can meet most if not all of the growth in our energy needs over the next several decades through energy efficiency. That is what will allow us to win the energy security battle and to win the climate battle. But it takes public policy commitment to make this happen. Even though market forces are working, and we do believe in market solutions, there are significant market barriers and there are other economic forces at work that are limiting the rate of investment that we need to achieve in efficiency. We have recently completed a study for the International Energy Agency that shows that simple market barriers—that every serious economist will acknowledge affects half or more of the energy used in our residential and commercial buildings—with those kind of market barriers in place, we can’t expect the market to deliver the results. We have to have some serious policy help to move markets forward. I want to touch also on energy efficiency and the way it plays in climate policy. We have been studying this issue for several years. We were stakeholders in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that stretches from Maryland to Maine now. I know the District is talking about joining RGGI, as it is called. The detailed studies that we have participated in show that any way you look at it, energy efficiency makes climate policy affordable. It reduces carbon prices, reduces energy bills, it improves economic growth while reducing carbon. And that is great, but here is the paradox. The climate policy designs that we are talking about today, whether they are cap-and-trade or carbon taxes will not be sufficient to obtain the energy efficiency investment that would make carbon policy affordable. Let me say a little bit more about that. Cap-and-trade systems set caps up at the power plant level, and when you reduce energy use down at the customer level, that doesn’t change the cap on emissions at the smokestack level. Emission traders tell us we will not accept credits for people who say they saved energy in a building. That is a fundamental structural problem in cap-and-trade design and we need to fix that. Secondly, a lot of the effects that are expected from climate policy come from price effects. Carbon taxes or carbon allowance prices raise the price of energy. What we find by looking at how markets are actually working today, those effects are very weak and we are not going to see energy prices that will motivate energy efficiency at the rate we need to see it. I want to compress some of my other remarks and get to a few of our policy recommendations. Certainly we have to have carbon policy designs that encourage energy efficiency. If there is a cap- and-trade program, there has to be an allowance allocation policy that sets aside a large chunk of allowances to get after energy efficiency and the other low-carbon technologies that won’t happen automatically under the cap-and-trade system. We need com- plementary policies that come in at the appropriate level of the market to get efficiency where it exists in vehicles and buildings.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 226 In the transportation sector in this Committee’s jurisdiction under SAFETEA-LU and those kinds of legislation, we would recommend that the Committee look at State allocation formulas for Federal transportation funding to encourage State and local governments to consider greenhouse gas emissions improvements as part of that process. We would like the Committee to order a study of the climate benefits of a Federal policy that was more active in supporting transportation and land use planning at the State and local level. My colleagues have already talked a lot about building codes and building standards. I won’t go into that. Appliance standards are also part of that picture. Research and development is part of that picture. We need to rebuild the research and development infrastructure in this country. And our research also shows that significant carbon savings can be realized at very low cost to energy efficiency. So we urge you to use efficiency as the first fuel in the race for clean and secure energy. Thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer any questions. Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Prindle. Mr. Harris. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be here to talk with you on this important topic and to join my colleagues from our fellow organizations. My name is Jeffrey Harris. I am the Vice President for Programs at the Alliance to Save Energy. The Alliance is a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 120 business, governmental, environmental. And consumer leaders. Our mission is to promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a clean environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance was founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey. This year we are enjoying our 30th anniver- sary. We currently enjoy the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor as our chair, with congressional vice chairs Congressman Ed Markey, Zack Wamp, Ralph Hall, and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Col- lins, Larry Craig, and Byron Dorgan. In addressing the topic of today, I would like to focus on the importance of improving energy efficiency and reducing energy waste within the Federal Government in both fixed facilities and mobile operations. This is a topic we have already heard several of the earlier witnesses in Panel I address. I would like to go into a little more detail and point out that although I am emphasizing Federal Government opportunities, virtually all of these opportunities also apply at the State and municipal level, and as we have seen from the important examples of policy leadership recently on energy efficiency, in the District government here. The U.S. Federal Government is the world’s single largest user of energy and also its largest waster of energy. In 2005 Federal agencies accounted for about 2 percent of total energy use in the country and cost U.S. taxpayers $14-1/2 billion. Of this total, about $5 million goes to heat, cool, and power about a half million Fed- eral buildings around the country, but the majority of this Federal energy use goes for mobility purposes. This includes the light and heavy duty fleet vehicles, military aircraft and ships, and a huge

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 227 variety of mobile systems that must be deployed and fueled wherever they are needed, both for defense purposes but also for disaster relief and recovery, for scientific research and for a host of other Federal purposes, and it is this mobility energy that now needs most of the new attention, in our view. Thanks to concerted efforts by Congress and leaders in Federal agencies, government as a whole has reduced primary energy use by 13 percent in the past 20 years and this has also led to a 25 percent decrease in real dollars in the government’s energy bill. These savings have been dramatic, but there is a strong potential for additional energy savings, especially in the case, as I mentioned, of this Federal mobility energy use, which was actually higher in 2005 than it was 10 years previously. We already have on the books a number of ambitious targets, standards, requirements and programs aimed at reducing Federal agency energy use. Most of these focus on conventional Federal buildings. These requirements, some of them at least, were put in place within the last 2 years and as a result are not yet fully implemented. So we still have a challenge in accomplishing them fully, and this requires the active involvement of Congress in three ways: periodic oversight, assurance of adequate funding, and in several cases supplementing or strengthening the existing statutes in on the books. The most important step to reduce Federal energy use is to fully implement the policies already in place, and these include a wide range of efforts for energy efficiency standards in new Federal construction, energy metering and energy savings targets for existing buildings, performance contracts for third-party financing of energy saving improvements, energy efficient government purchasing, and use of life-cycle costing for government investment decisions. We believe that Congress’ first role here is to conduct thorough and sustained oversight to help focus the attention of government officials on meeting their agency’s energy savings and cost-effec- tiveness targets. Second, though, Congress has to assure adequate funding for Federal energy efficiency improvements that generate and sustain long-term savings. This will require billions of dollars of investments but it will save even more. In recent years, though, the annual appropriations that we have seen for energy efficiency in Fed- eral buildings have been only on the order of $100- to $300 million a year. This funding needs to be increased, but Congress also needs to emphasize the importance of Federal agencies using the innovative financing mechanisms available to them, the energy savings performance contracts and utility energy service contracts that allow agencies to upgrade energy efficiency at no initial cost to the government. These ESPCs and UESCs, as they are called now, provide—at one time provided more than $500 million a year for energy savings investments, but after the authorization by Congress lapsed temporarily in 2003, we still haven’t arrived at the same level of investment from these innovative funding sources. We have several recommendations in our detailed testimony—let me just summarize them here—for additional policies that, first,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 228 would require comprehensive energy and water saving evaluations for each Federal agency to be updated periodically. Second, require that Federal agencies actually implement all of the water-saving and energy-saving measures identified in these evaluations, all the measures that have a payback of 15 years or less; and, in doing so, allow agencies to combine, in any way that is suitable, appropriated funds and this third-party financing that I mentioned. Third, make sure that agencies provide for start-up commis- sioning of energy-using systems and for periodic review of performance and diagnostics to make sure that these systems work as they are planned, and keep on working. Fourth, extend the energy efficiency requirements for new Fed- eral buildings that were put in place by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 so that they also apply to leased Federal buildings, and that we add to these requirements provisions for smart growth, principles applied to the location and siting of Federal facilities to make sure that they are accessible for employees and for the public by means other than single occupancy automobiles. Finally, we need to look beyond the Federal building sector alone and establish new savings goals and policies for the mobility sector, which accounts for the largest component of Federal energy use. Let me conclude my comments and I would be happy to answer your questions. Ms. NORTON. Finally, Mr. O’Brien. Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Christopher O’Brien, I am Vice President for Strat- egy and Government Relations for Sharp Electronics Corporation Solar Energy Solutions Group. Sharp is a producer, leading producer of solar photovoltaic panels. These are panels that produce electricity without pollution directly from sunlight. I have a minia- ture example of the types of panels we produce at our factory in Memphis and on the sign board an example of one of the more common applications where these solar panels are installed directly on Federal buildings or on buildings to reduce the energy use in those buildings. I would like to focus today on the main point which is that solar technologies can play a significant role in reducing energy use in Federal buildings. There is ample roof space available, and wide deployment of this solar technology will have associated benefits, including the reduction in peak energy demand and significant economic development or jobs growth. Let me first emphasize that the single most important action that the Federal Government can take to encourage the increased use of solar energy across the country would be to enact the provisions of H.R. 550, the ″Securing America’s Energy Independence Act.″ this includes an 8-year extension of the solar investment tax credit for homeowners and businesses who install solar energy systems. Note that this investment tax credit would be applicable to both public sector and private sector entities because, in most cases, projects on Federal facilities would be developed by third parties who could use the tax credit, and it would be a significant catalyst to increased solar usage.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 229 Let me now outline—I am here before the Committee today in my role as chairman of the board of the Solar Energy Industries Association. There are over 400 companies that are members of SEIA, including Sharp, and it is in that role that I appear before you today. I would like to, first, outline SEIA’s recommendations for specific policies to encourage the increased deployment of solar energy on Federal facilities. SEIA recommends the creation of a new strategic initiative, the solar technology utilization and deployment program. This program would create a framework for Federal, State and local governments that would facilitate the installation of solar energy systems, including solar thermal, and would expedite the purchase of solar-generated electricity by third-party financing. The target would be to achieve 3 gigawatts of mandated solar capacity at Federal facilities by 2012 and would be complemented by a voluntary commitment from State and local governments. Federal commitments would be established in 2007 and 2008. Agency requirements to deploy solar would be calibrated to their energy consumption so the more the agency spends annually on energy, the higher their target for solar deployment would be. There are several reasons why the Federal Government should take the lead in launching this solar program. The Federal Government is the largest single user of energy. The program would have a significant stimulus to jobs growth. I can speak directly to this from our experience at Sharp where we have over 200 jobs created in the last 3 years and many hundred more jobs among the businesses that we serve as customers. Third, the Federal Government is uniquely stable financially in its ability to back long-term commitments to help support the financing for these projects. Finally, this program would displace roughly 3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions as a result of full implementation. In order to launch and implement the program the following legislative changes would be required. First, the program would require legislation to provide GSA with an exemption from the current 10-year restriction. This would be applicable for any utility service contract that supplied energy from new renewable resources. This is necessary because most private sector solar instal- lations will pay out over a period of 10 to 30 years, so the utility service contract must cover that duration. Second, the legislation should authorize Federal agencies to offer leases of underutilized real property, both rooftops and underutilized land areas, to solar developers. Third would be to enact legislative language setting required targets for increased use of solar power in Federal facilities. This kind of top-down guidance would provide much—by agency heads to the facility staff would greatly increase the pace of solar deployment. Finally, Congress should demonstrate its leadership and commitment by launching an initiative to require the Architect of the Cap- itol to issue an RFP for deployment to 5 megawatts on congression- ally controlled properties and structures. This would be an immediate and a highly visible deployment and would demonstrate the congressional leadership is sincere in its commitment to a carbon- smart future.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 230 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I look forward to addressing any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. Ms. NORTON. I must say that this testimony is just chock full of ideas, I think many of them are very practical. I don’t know where to begin, especially since we intend to—my own concern in a list of priorities would be to look at what is least costly and most immediate. Got to begin. The Chairman, as virtually the first piece of legislation out of here, has already got a photovoltaic proposal approved for the De- partment of Energy. That will, I think, send a message and also prove something about the use of energy. We all know the Federal Government. It would bring down the cost, since we are the biggest user of energy in the country. Let me begin by asking just a few questions, given my interest in submitting proposals to the Chairman for legislation that could be immediately produced, recognizing that we have a huge deficit that everybody is going to be controlled by. Mr. Stewart, you say that the goal of the AIA is that all new buildings, I guess that means public and private, should meet an immediate reduction of 50 percent in fossil fuels—fossil fuel-generated energy compared to the 2003 baseline. Immediate, by when? And all new buildings, how? That is design or some kind of performance or building system standards. When you say immediately, compared to 2003, that would seem to be now. Can they do it? Can they do that kind of huge reduction? Mr. STEWART. Yes, ma’am. We believe it is possible to make those kinds of cuts immediately. If you begin to look at an integrated—— Ms. NORTON. You mean buildings already up, or new? Mr. STEWART. New and major renovations. So that we are talking about projects that we will be looking at in the entire assem- blage. So you start to talk about window assemblies and their insu- lating value, the insulation placed in the walls and roofs, the equipment that goes in to heat, cool, ventilate the building; lighting systems, utilizing day lighting more extensively in control systems so that you don’t need to light spaces that have good daylight. And then you start to deal with just those kinds of systems before you get into more advanced technologies. We believe it is possible to achieve these kinds of 50 percent cuts today. But a lot of this has to do with looking at the separation that exists today between capital costs and operations and maintenance budgets. Oftentimes what we see is decision makers chasing first cost, to lower the first cost, and ignoring the implications of a building’s 75-year life. Ms. NORTON. That is the great problem in this country, from Wall Street to building design. Everybody looks at what the returns are. Wall Street looks at returns every virtual month, sometimes we think every minute, and we end up making hugely erroneous and costly decisions that way. The first thing we are going to hear is it costs too much money, which is related to something else you say on page 11 of your testimony, that you yourself, the AIA, is apparently going to analyze a study of the benefits. I take it you mean economic benefits of energy efficient billing.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 231 I would like to know, first, when that study will be concluded. And one of the things we have had the hardest time finding an au- thoritative study of, but what we think would be most convincing is not the 75-year life of a building. Too many people will say I won’t be here for 75 years, and I have got to show that I am building efficiently and with low cost now. Is your study designed to show what the benefits, the cost benefits are by years, let’s say 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? Mr. STEWART. The study is designed to both address energy savings as well as cost savings. It is underway right now. We expect to have it done in the next couple of months and we will be more than happy to share it with you. One of the things that has been interesting in the data that has emerged over the last year is that a lot of the first cost assumptions are proving to be erroneous as the market tends to mature. Turner Construction issued a report at the end of 2006 that indicated their experience has been that the additional costs for more sustainable design is roughly .8 percent of the initial construction budget. Davis Langdon, which is an international cost estimating firm, has told us that it is statistically insignificant, trying to find those additional costs. So I think the market is changing rapidly over time and what people perceive as first cost impediments are really starting to go away. Ms. NORTON. Somebody has to do an economic model that shows us how these shifting costs should play into how they figure out whether savings will be, again, because of the short-term vision of not only people that build buildings but, frankly, people who do everything in this country. Mr. Harris, much of what you suggest, what I am really intrigued by is the page where you indicate the first thing to do is essentially to meet the standards that already are in existence. You suggest there is not a lot of enforcement going on, and that if there were, that very substantial reductions—I don’t use enforcement in the policing sense—but nobody is watching, nobody is monitoring, or at least not enough, and some of them are just very intriguing because you cite already existing executive orders. For example, one that intrigues me I have to ask you about, I guess it is page 3, you say each agency is to reduce energy use intensity by 3 percent per annum, or 30 percent by 2015. That really sounds good. You want them to meet earlier target, culminating in 30 percent between agencies—mostly met—I’m sorry—earlier targets between 1985 and 2005. But you say that total energy use reductions have been smaller as energy intensive facilities are excluded from these targets and as the targets are interpreted as applying to site energy. Are you talking about Federal policy now? Who was excluded? Mr. HARRIS. There are some detailed guidelines that the Federal energy management program at the Department of Energy has issued, and there are now some requirements to look at cost-effective measures in an energy intensive facility, industrial-type facilities, defense maintenance facilities, a whole range of laboratories and other things that are not what we think of as a classic office building or a residence, for example, for a military family.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 232 So the difference is that there are no quantitative targets of the same sort that we have seen for the so-called standard Federal buildings. There has been substantial progress made, but the trail is getting steeper. The rules that we are facing ahead are 3 percent per year, and that will pose a bigger challenge to Federal agencies. That is why we argue that it is important for Congress to maintain its oversight function and to make sure that there is adequate funding of these programs and adequate training and support and technical assistance that comes from the Federal energy management program. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, are you going to have to go vote again? I don’t have to vote in Committee. I guess I should watch out about seeking a larger vote from the Committee of the Whole. I should ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions before you run again. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. You are doing very well with the questions. Many of those are ones I wanted to propound myself but I will have to leave in a few minutes to make this. These are protest votes that we are having to do on the House floor, and I understand that, having been in the minority, we did some of the same things. Mr. Stewart, the Institute of Architects, for whom I have great admiration, has, throughout the testimony you have presented, set goals for reduction of fossil fuel consumption through building design and through life-cycle design and construction facilities. Which raises the issue that the continued objection that we hear to conservation, to reduction of greenhouse gases through changes in technology is that these are not obtainable, except at great economic cost and loss to the economy. And wherever there is resistance, these are the objections that are raised. We can’t meet these goals. You say IAI approved an official position stating all new buildings and major renovation of existing buildings be designed to meet an immediate 50 percent reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy. If you had to retire that, amortize that cost to the first year, that would be a huge—a steep hill to climb. But if you amortize it over 20 years or 30 years or longer, the life-cycle of that building, then it becomes imminently achievable, does it not. Or am I mistaken? Did I miss the beat somewhere? Mr. STEWART. No, sir, you are spot on. We have been working with the Congress. In the 2005 energy bill, as you recall, there was a tax credit provision up to $1.80 a square foot for energy reductions, and Congresswoman Schwartz has authored a bill to extend that credit to 2012 and enhance it to $2.25 a square foot. We are also in a number of conversations with the financial markets to recognize the value of increased energy efficiency and more sustainably designed projects in an effort to get discounted financial rates. The insurance markets are recognizing the increased value of sustainably designed buildings and are offering discounts in their insurance rates for buildings that have been designed in this manner. So I think the economy, in one sense, is starting to catch up with recognition of the value that these kinds of projects bring to the table.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 233

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very significant point; that insurance rates are lower for—at least adjusted for energy efficiency. That is the market response, is it not? Mr. STEWART. That is correct. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. O’Brien, you may have heard me say on one or more occasion that in my second term in Congress I had the good fortune to preside over a hearing of the Subcommittee on Pub- lic Buildings and Grounds, as it was simply called then. Now we have added other responsibilities to it. Which Ms. Norton chairs. The Sheet Metal Workers Union presented testimony during the course of our hearings on public building energy efficiency, presented results of a 2-volume study that they commissioned on conversion of Federal civilian office space to photovoltaic cells, the result of which was it would create 135,000 jobs in the Sheet Metal Workers Union-- which is equivalent to, I think, their total mem- bership at the time—and it would save the government enormous amounts of money and also contribute less to atmospheric carbon emissions. While I thought this was a splendid idea, they suggested $175 million a year for the government to buy and install, the private sector to build facilities. At the time, the cost of energy from photovoltaic cells was $1.75 a kilowatt hour. The same kilowatt hour for the private sector was $0.07 a kilowatt hour. So I introduced the bill. Senator Humphrey called me up, saw the news release, said, ″You send me that bill, we will introduce it over here.″ and he moved it to the Senate, we moved it through the House, President Carter signed it into law. He provided the $75 million for the first of a 3-year program designed to drop the cost down of energy from photovoltaics from $1.75 to the range of 15 to 20 cents over a period of 20 years. President Carter put the money in his last budget. Then he lost the next election, and President Reagan just dissolved the entire alternative energy budget of $960 million. So time passes. I have become the Chairman of the Committee. I say this is still a great idea to do. We have jurisdiction over 367 million square feet of Federal civilian office space in this Com- mittee. The energy cost for those buildings is 5 billion 800 million dollars. Why wouldn’t you do something just to save money, if for no other reason, to save money to taxpayers that would use alternative forms of energy? So we moved the bill through Ms. Norton’s Subcommittee to—I call it—″future fitting″ the Department of Energy building, which was built with the south wall blank, no window or doors to accommodate a solar application. We moved this through the Sub- committee, Full Committee, through the House. Virtually unanimous vote. It is pending in, as we affectionately call them, the other body, and we hope that they will do something soon. I know there is a willingness to do it on the part of the chair, Ms. Boxer. Well, use that as a template, show that it can be done, but at the same time move ahead with legislation to equip all Federal buildings under jurisdiction of this Committee with solar power. Just makes imminent good sense. That is a statement you can respond to.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 234

Mr. O’BRIEN. I fully agree with you. I think that the types of signature projects such as the one that you outline in your legislation are to be commended and I think do set a great example and a highly visible example of what can be done. I think the resource that you talked about is absolutely spot on; there is an enormous resource of rooftop space, of Federal lands that could be used and, in many cases, at a considerable cost advantage for the deployment of solar. So some of the changes that we have outlined in our recommendations are really just unlocking those resources. And that is really focused on two areas. One is making some of that space available for developers to come and develop projects. We are finding an increasing model in the private sector of what we call a PPA model, where a developer will come and build and develop a solar project on someone else’s rooftop, will give them a long-term energy contract and say we will provide you with energy at a 10 percent discount, 5 percent discount, and over a period of 15 or 20 years, and so to make—and that could work in the Federal buildings as well. It requires a couple of things. One, it requires access to the rooftops and, second, it requires the ability of the building host, in this case the Federal facility owner, to enter into a long-term contract like that to buy the energy into that long-term contract. Mr. OBERSTAR. How long a period of time is, in your judgment, the current payback for investment in solar energy? By the way, the cost has gone down from $1.75 to roughly 25 cents a kilowatt hour just without significant stimulus. Mr. O’BRIEN. A lot of that is because of developments, and you mentioned the curtailment of support here in the U.S. That did not stop some other countries from moving ahead. So where the solar industry grew very quickly and solar PB industry grew very quickly was in Japan and Germany most recently. The irony is Germany has the amount of sunshine the equivalent of Alaska, but they are now the largest market of solar PD in the world, largely because of a strong political commitment that has been taken to ensure that renewables in general and solar in particular are a significant part of the energy mix by 2020. I think in terms of the payback, it ranges. It may be up to in the area of 10 years or more for residential application. Many commercial applications would demand a paypack considerably shorter that. That is usually possible with some of the State-level incentives that are in place. It will be greatly facilitated by a Federal tax credit such as is included in H.R. 550. But at the same time, what is happening is there is a development of this PPA model where in many cases commercial customers are able to sign up today and pay less than their peak cost of energy right from the get-go. Mr. OBERSTAR. I have to stop you there, but Ms. Norton will have other questions. I will vote and return. I want you all to be thinking about specific initiatives that we can craft into legislative language as we fashion our part of the energy and conservation package that House leadership is planning to bring to the floor in July. Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 235 Just completing the Chairman’s round of questions on solar, I am informed a Federal Archives building with solar panels inlaid into the building was just opened within the last few weeks in Wal- tham, Massachusetts. This is a Federal building. In fact, the GSA has been pressing ahead where the funds are available. Would you explain to me the difference in the panels—and you can see the way the temperature is recorded, that it was working; of course, some of us uneducated on solar energy would wonder what the difference was in sun intensity and the efficiency of solar energy. Waltham, Massachusetts would not come to mind if that is what one was thinking about. This was an archives building. I don’t know if it is a building with lots of people in it or what, but I am wondering about the universality or not of solar energy in public buildings. Mr. O’BRIEN. It is a good question. I think the quick answer is that there is—obviously among the broad portfolio of Federal facilities, there are going to be some places where the economics work well in the short term and others that are going to work better as the cost of solar technology comes down. I think that what is important to recognize is that the economics depend not just on the amount of sunshine available but also on the value of the energy that you are displacing. So in many cases Waltham would be a good example where the electric rates are comparatively higher than they might be in New Mexico, for example. So even though it has comparatively less sunshine, it has comparatively more valuable electricity being displaced. And the solar industry has grown very sophisticated in terms of modeling what the economics would be for any particular site so it requires—a site survey would be pretty straightforward to determine what the payback would be and what the economics would be for the different Federal facilities. The overall message, though, is that the technology is quite universal in application. As I mentioned, Germany is the largest market today, which is probably an outlyer in terms of insulation. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Prindle, in your testimony you don’t give a lot of currency to one of the new kind of progressive ideas, not necessarily widely embraced yet, but the notion of a carbon tax. And you indicated it would not stimulate efficiency. I would like to have you elaborate on that. In other words, you don’t think that causing the price to go up matters much. Mr. PRINDLE. As we have observed the actual behavior of energy markets in recent decades, what we find is that price elasticity effects, as economists refer to them, are much weaker than they were once thought. Ms. NORTON. Where, Mr. Prindle? Mr. PRINDLE. They are weaker in motor fuel markets. Ms. NORTON. Are we talking about the United States? If you are talking about the United States, I don’t think anybody has ever done anything in the United States, or done very much, to make energy more expensive. In fact, all of the policy, all of the rhetoric is designed to make the American people believe they deserve cheap energy and, yes, so it is at $3 a gallon now, and even more if you happen to live in my district. You ask a comparable Euro- pean resident what she or he would think of a comparable $3 a gal-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 236 lon gas. I wonder if we have experimented with it. I am not advo- cating it, but I can’t believe that we would take our own policy, what comparable countries have felt they must do while we scream and shout about the Middle East and about the cost of energy, and even in the 1970s when we had the long gas lines, went right back, because in fact the experience is quite the opposite, not that we have seen high prices, but on the contrary, that the prices tend to go down and therefore reassuring the American public, see, you deserve this. Everybody else in the world doesn’t. Let them raise the cost of energy but we deserve, and we can prove that it doesn’t work because, see, you pay high prices. When—over what sustained period have the American people paid high prices for energy? Mr. PRINDLE. Well, we have seen increases, particularly in gasoline prices, in the last 3 to 4 years. And what we have also seen, this has been measured by researchers at the University of Cali- fornia Davis. I recite it in my testimony. What they found is that the price elasticity effect, the response of customer behavior to changes in prices is about six times weaker than it was measured in the 1970s. And so we have a fundamental problem if we expect high prices alone to motivate enough change in investment, enough change in behavior. I am not saying prices don’t work, I am not saying we should ignore energy prices. But if we want to meet the energy security challenge we have in this country, and especially the climate challenge, prices alone will not be sufficient. Ms. NORTON. If you are saying prices alone, I am sure you are right. I am sure you are right. I don’t even know if prices will do it. I just don’t believe that this is a fair—that we have had a fair test of that. And what worries me most is that Americans think it is unfair, it is unfair for them to be tested in this way. We have reinforced the notion that they deserve high energy and thus that we are having to turn around a whole culture and mentality on greening. Fortunately, as we begin and the facts get out there, people are beginning therefore to wonder. I mean, one of the reasons I think why Detroit hasn’t had any real reason to change is the Congress hasn’t wanted to push beyond where the American people are. No- body has had the guts to do that. And Detroit says well, shucks, why should we change? We are here where energy doesn’t matter, the cost of energy doesn’t matter. And now they are saying that we’re behind the 8 ball, with not even a decent number of hybrids to put on the market. It just goes to show you what the Europeans did initially, frankly only with price. And then, when price was up, that encouraged the industry to go to different, more efficient automobiles and things began to show results there that we have not had. I am not disputing the initial notion and I think it is a very important notion to put forward because I do think we are a magic bullet society. And that has come forward as the latest magic bullet. I must say I am very intrigued, Mr. Harris, on your notion of incentives. Boy, am I intrigued about that. I believe in win-wins. I am intrigued by the whole set of things that people can do because I believe the way to break Americans into the energy conservation business is with old-fashioned conservation, old-fashioned

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 237 things, for example, yeah, turning the lights off and finding a way so that it happens. I think it happens without giving much responsibility to somebody. When nobody has the responsibility, the building superintendent, for example, and doesn’t get rewarded for it, why should he do it? Now we give bonuses here in the Federal Government to people for doing good work. I have never heard of a bonus given to a working stiff who is a building superintendent for making sure that all the things you say the executive orders already say to do. The notion of incentives, I would like you to consider the Federal workforce, 2 million people, to elaborate on—and if not bonuses, and I am not suggesting money and bonuses are the only way—but to elaborate on incentives. Mr. HARRIS. I certainly agree with a lot of what you are saying. And from my experience over quite a few years working with Fed- eral employees and a number of agencies, it is true that not everybody focuses on energy efficiency as much as I might like them to do. But there are a lot of dedicated people out there for whom energy efficiency is something they care about and is something they try to do. They are not always at a level of the agency where they can make the decisions that matter and so—— Ms. NORTON. Where are they? Mr. HARRIS. Down at the working level, managing a facility. They may be the staff person responsible. Ms. NORTON. Managing the facility. Isn’t that just the kind of person who is at the level where he can have an effect? Mr. HARRIS. There is a chain of command above that person, above him or her, and often you have capital investments that must be made at the top levels of an agency, you have budget constraints. We need Federal personnel from top to bottom recognizing the importance of these goals and encouraged to make decisions that are based on, as we were talking earlier, life-cycle costing, looking at the long term, and looking at what the savings will be, not just what the initial cost will be. I think, as you said, there is no single silver bullet to resolve this, but I think a variety of mechanisms can help. One, as I mentioned before, is congressional oversight, not just once but contin- ually to pay attention to what you the agencies are doing. Let me tell you a small anecdote, if I might, because you mentioned European experience. There is a European requirement now that is just rolling out, being implemented, that calls for a certification of the performance of large buildings every year. This also requires that when a building is sold, when it changes hands through a lease when it is first built, that there has to be a disclo- sure of how much energy that building uses. There is a special requirement for public buildings and that is that all public buildings must post their energy performance for the public to see. In Denmark they have gone even further. In Den- mark every building, I believe, over 100,000 kilowatt hours, has a special recording meter that takes the energy, electricity use from that building and puts it on the Web so that anybody can see it in real time. I don’t speak very good Danish but I have gone to that Web site. An I heard a wonderful story about a minister who one Friday evening went to the Web site for his building and saw that

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 238 the building systems had not been shut down for the weekend as they should have been. He got on the phone, talked to the energy manager, and he read him the riot act. He said, Do you know that this information is out there for anybody in the public to see; and by the time I get up tomorrow morning I better see something different on our agency’s Web site. Now, I don’t know whether that story is true or not, but the point is it is being circulated as it if is something that could happen. So transparency, openness, and feedback on what buildings are actually doing can be a very powerful force at motivating people for being recognized for the good work they are doing; and if they slack off, to recognize they have got to fix it. So there is a different incentive that is important. Ms. NORTON. I recognize that we are further along in capital investment in some of these devices than in others. You say some will require capital investment. For the immediate term, I am not looking at those that require capital investment. GSA does a lot of automatic turn-off of lights, those things that turn off and turn on when you come into the ladies room and so forth, or the kitchen part. I believe that if you begin people where they are, you can take people where they want to go. And when people hear us talking about energy now, they say, for God’s sake, they just know they are so far from either being able to do what they think is affordable or afford the tax that would be necessary to do it. That basically the only way we have gotten their attention is through what Al Gore and others have done with warming and the fear that has now emerged. Mr. Prindle and Mr. Harris suggest an interesting issue. I certainly would love to get ahold of that and wonder how they do it: where essentially both of you in one way or another want the Fed- eral Government to get tougher on codes, or stricter codes. But, of course, in our system, that is usually considered a local issue. How do you see the Federal Government able to make the demand and make it stick? Mr. PRINDLE. Madam Chair, it is ultimately a local issue and, as you know, the District government has recently instituted some very strong new building codes for private buildings. Ms. NORTON. So you would expect a local jurisdiction. Are you saying the local jurisdiction, or are you saying the Federal Govern- ment can have an effect? Mr. PRINDLE. The Federal Government can have a very strong effect by working at the national level, with the national organizations that develop what we call model codes. Because the standards that the District implemented weren’t invented overnight, they were developed by national organizations. Ms. NORTON. Or by the District. Mr. PRINDLE. The District deserves credit for taking the leadership to implement it, but these are very technical documents and so there are national processes and national organizations that develop the models, and the Federal Government could be a lot more aggressive in pushing for those 50 percent better performance levels in the national model codes and then at least the State and local governments have a model that they can draw on. They can

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 239 feel more confident in adopting one of those models if it has been developed and endorsed by a national organization. Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, if I could add to that, I certainly agree with everything that Mr. Prindle has said. The Alliance to Save Energy, working with a number of other organizations, many of which you see here at the table, has actually proposed some legislation to do exactly that, to establish clear benchmarks for these national model codes to progress over time towards the kinds of goals that Mr. Stewart was talking about earlier. There is a second role that I think is very important and we have been talking about it in the last few minutes, and that is that the Federal Government and, for that matter, State government agencies, local agencies, school districts can be the leaders, can say that their buildings are going to not only meet these new codes but go beyond them. We have right now in Federal law a requirement that Federal buildings should be 50 percent more energy efficient than the current code. And as Mr. Stewart said earlier, AIA is proposing that these standards should be even higher for Federal buildings in the future, and our organization strongly endorses that. I also point out—and Mr. Stewart may want to comment on this—that the vision 2030 goals that the AIA has outlined had been endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, by hundreds of mayors around the country. It is those same mayors whose building officials and building departments have responsibility for code adoption and for code endorsement in many cases, and they are also the building officials who go to the organizations that Mr. Prindle referred to and establish the model codes. I am sorry to say that many times we see a very conservative approach from these building officials, and we would like to see the opposite; we would like to see them stepping out and providing leadership. And I think the mayors can be encouraged to talk to their building officials and say, when you go to this next code conference we want you to speak up for making building energy codes stronger than they have been. I think there is a lot to do at all levels of government. Ms. NORTON. I would like to ask all four of you for some friendly advice. You saw me ask in the beginning about—or bemoan the ab- sence of some universally accepted model for payback, life-cycle costing, or costing even in the nearer term. And I am wondering who might the Federal Government commission to do something like that. When we have had comparable things, although I must say this may be different, we have gone to somebody like the Na- tional Academy of Sciences or somebody like that. To go to any of you is to go to people who will be seen with a vested interest, and I hope you do have a vested interest. The point is to give everybody else a vested interest as well. The fact that we can’t put our hands on something definitive has not helped us. Ob- viously, if you sit down with experts, you can kind of figure out these models and what they mean; I mean, yes, from a technical and expert point of view that says this is what it means, America. Who in the world do you think could definitively do that and have it accepted as an objective source by the professions, by science, by the government and by the public?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 240

Mr. PRINDLE. I will take a quick stab at that and my colleagues, I am sure, can add to that. There are some established available for life-cycle costing. The Department of Energy, for example, has life-cycle costing methods that it uses for setting appliance standards, in setting Federal building standards. The broader challenge, I think, is to translate those—you know, those are sort of economic analysis methods. Those have to be translated into the marketplace. For example, in the residential mortgage market, a mortgage should be underwritten based on the total of principal, interest, taxes, insurance and energy costs. If mortgage underwriters took energy costs into account when they underwrote a 30-year mortgage, that would change behavior in the mortgage market. And so that the economic analysis tools are there. It is creating policies that gets them used in the market in real ways. Because even though the tools are there, what we see is market barriers and other forces continue to make those short-term driven decisions; you know, lowest first cost, and I am sure my colleagues would have additional thoughts on that. Mr. STEWART. As you noted earlier in some of your comments, that kind of short quarterly, annual time frame where people are looking for payback is really very, very shortsighted when we know building lives are so extended. Some of the comments Mr. Harris made about exposing the real costs to tenants and the people who occupy buildings is important. My firm, Gensler, did a survey of building owners and managers and tenants from our London office, and what we found there was that tenants were becoming increasingly disturbed at the fact that they were paying for inefficiently designed buildings. And so as the marketplace begins to recognize that they are assuming real-time costs now for decisions that were made long ago, I think we will begin to see that change. Places where the studies can be done are like, NIBS, National Institute of Building Sciences, in places like that. We are working with Mr. Harris in the large Berkeley lab on some proposals to look at ways where we can enhance sustainability as well as examine the payback. So I know you have been working a lot with that, Jef- frey; you may want to comment on that. Mr. HARRIS. Sure, thank you. I will. I think there is a whole lot to do in this field and I think that is probably a topic for a separate hearing which we would be delighted to attend. Suffice to say, I think going back to what Mr. Prindle said, there are lots of methods out there for doing the economic calculations. I think it is a question of how to deliver the message as both of you have, I think quite rightly, said. Let me give you one example. If you buy a refrigerator now, go into a Circuit City or wherever you want to shop for appliances, you will see a yellow label that is the FTC energy guide label. And if you squint carefully and take out your glasses you can find a dollar amount. The problem is most people can’t see it. And research has shown—research from Mr. Prindle’s organization—that a significant number of people who see that number, $75, think that it is the savings number and not the annual energy cost, which in fact it is.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 241

Ms. NORTON. So government, of course, can require that it be seeable and knowable from reading it. Mr. HARRIS. That is exactly right. And right now the FTC is in the middle of a proceeding to try to redo that label to make it much clearer and easier to understand, so that is a great example of how delivering information is really key. Let me suggest another way in which delivering information is going to matter. When Congress approves the budget for con- structing a new Federal building, I believe, if you look at one thing and that is the price tag for that building, you are not looking at the price tag for the building, you are looking at part of the price tag for the building, as Mr. Prindle, Mr. Stewart and Mr. O’Brien of said. What we should find is ways to get Congress to look at the total price, the true cost of building and owning and operating that building, including its energy costs, because that building is going to be there for half a century, maybe longer. Ms. NORTON. You think we can do that even for leased buildings? Because we are the ones—they lease them, but they need us in order to have a building in the first place. Mr. HARRIS. And I think leases, because they have already spread out the costs in the lease payments, are one of the better ways to get at the question of not only the cost of occupying the building but of paying for the energy bill for the building. Ms. NORTON. One of the reasons that strikes me is because we lease many buildings for long periods of time, that we do not then own at the end. When you lease—energy savings for having leased a building all that period. Mr. HARRIS. I agree with you, Madam Chair. One of the recommendations we make in our written testimony is that the requirements for energy efficiency in a building that the Federal Gov- ernment builds and pays for up front should also apply to any building that is built by a private developer for the purpose of leasing to the Federal Government. Ms. NORTON. What about buildings we already lease and we for the most part—let’s say in the District and the region—we will be leasing buildings that are already up, sometimes we have been leasing for some time. Do you think that we could have same or similar effect on those buildings? Mr. HARRIS. I honestly do. And I think the way to do that is over time as these leases are up for renewal, every 5 years or whatever it is, there should be a requirement that the lease renewal include a renovation cycle, a retrofitting of the building for all measures that are cost-effective over some period of time, perhaps the term of the next lease. Now once you have a building in place, as Mr. Stewart said, you are limited in what you can do with it. But there are still major renovation cycles that occur in buildings, and that is the opportunity certainly to renew the lighting system, sometimes to replace windows, and oftentimes to renew or redo the heating and cooling system and controls. So there are opportunities even in leased space. And we need to use the market power, especially in the Fed- eral Government, especially here in the District to make energy efficiency happen.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 242

Ms. NORTON. So much power so unused makes me cry. In your own testimony you say we could drive the cost of energy down throughout the United States. I want to thank you very much for testimony that has been enormously enlightening, and for suggesting ways that we can immediately approach these very important issues. And I am going to turn the meeting over to the next round. The next round is aviation and—— Oh, please be seated, Mr. Costello. And here the Chairman is coming back. We will have some questions on remaining questions for you. Mr. COSTELLO. [presiding.] Gentlemen, we have a number of questions left, and we will submit them in writing to you and ask you to reply. Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the Chair yield for just a moment? I will an- nounce that an agreement has been reached on the House floor that resolves the matter that has been the subject of repeated quorum calls, motions to rise, and attempts to disrupt the proceedings on the floor. The issue has been resolved. We will be able to proceed in an orderly fashion and hear testimony from this panel and the succeeding witnesses without disruption. Mr. Costello will be in the chair, and I will return, but not necessarily for this panel, because I have another meeting I have to attend to. Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee. And I have two questions that I would like to pose to the panel, and then the rest of the questions will be submitted and we will ask you to submit your answers in writing. All of us recognize that the Federal Government has come a long way in the past two decades regarding energy consumption, and the question is, where would you put your efforts in the next decade; research and development, alternative sources of of energy, consumption restrictions, adhering to stricter standards or efficiency investments? Mr. Stewart, if you would like to go first. Mr. STEWART. I think I would look at splitting my efforts between research and development. There is a lot of technology out there on the edge that could and should be brought to market that I think we will see great benefit from. I would think the other opportunity would be to advance the regulations and incentives because the opportunities to use the carrots and the sticks of the marketplace and the regulations to get people to actually implement and adhere to the standards, I think is one of the bigger challenges we face. As we have talked about this afternoon, there is a lot that can be done, but yet the market fails to respond. So if we can find ways to bring them around in their understanding of the benefits, not just in terms of the environmental benefits but the cost benefits, I think we would see a huge shift in the marketplace. Mr. COSTELLO. Chair thanks the gentleman. Mr. Prindle. Mr. PRINDLE. Thank you. I would say that we need a balanced portfolio of energy efficiency policies. The beginning of the pipeline, if you will, for energy effi-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 243 ciency infrastructure is research and development. Energy efficiency research and development has been reduced by more than 25 percent during the current administration’s tenure. After inflation, it is even worse. And that is not just cutting a few dollars; that is actually beginning to shut down whole sections of research institutions. That is infrastructure. That is infrastructure that we need to build the clean energy future. Congress needs to start by rebuilding the R&D and deployment programs at the Department of Energy and the other agencies, just to get us back on track. We also need to expand the labeling and voluntary programs we have through Energy Star. Those are working very well. They are underfunded. But we are also going to need regulations. Our markets will be where the problem gets solved, but markets work best when they have targets to hit. And so we need to set standards for individual appliances. We have been doing a lot of that in the last few years, 15 products in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We need standards for buildings, as we have been discussing, building codes. And we are also seeing at the State level, the States are setting energy efficiency targets on the macrolevel for entire utilities, for example. And for renewable energy. And when you set targets for energy efficiency and you set targets for renewable energy, we are seeing some States that can actually see their carbon emissions beginning to go down in the next 15 years because they are beginning to do that. And so that is going to take some judicious regulation as well. It is really a spec- trum. It starts with R&D and goes through regulation. Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The agreement that Chairman Oberstar just announced lasted about 2 minutes and we now have another vote on the floor. I have 12 minutes to get over, but let me—I am going to ask a final question, Mr. Harris and Mr. O’Brien, and then we are going to dismiss this panel and ask the third panel to come forward. We will go over and vote—there are two votes—and then come immediately right back. And if the third panel can be at the witness table, we will proceed immediately. Mr. Harris, what are the biggest obstacles you view to a national energy policy? Mr. HARRIS. I don’t know that I can do that justice in a minute or so, but let me take a stab at it. I certainly think that we have a lot of education to do to help people understand better how energy is used and where the opportunities are in their daily lives and the way they run their businesses and, in the case of policymakers and elected officials, in the areas under their jurisdiction for saving energy. So I think education has got to be a centerpiece of what we do, and overcoming what I don’t think is really reluctance—I think people are all busy, we have day jobs. I am fortunate that my day job is energy efficiency. But I think that we can nonetheless start with our elementary schools, and the Alliance to Save Energy is working with a number of school districts to do that and carrying it on throughout the school system and beyond. If there were a single thing that I would like to see happening that is not getting enough attention—and I agree with the list that my distinguished colleagues have just given you—it has to do with educating the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 244 general public to be literate in energy and understand where energy-saving opportunities lie. I think there is a flip side of that, and that is helping the people whose job is not only building buildings and operating them, but designing and installing industrial systems, running our utility companies to understand the opportunities for energy efficiency. We have, Mr. Chairman, in this business, in the energy efficiency business, a serious and growing workforce issue to deal with. We have people who—I will take the responsibility and let my colleagues jump in on this—are, frankly, getting a little long in the tooth. We have been in this business maybe 20, 30 years or longer, and finding the people who will replace us and come behind us, let alone let this field grow, is not going to be easy. So I think there is a huge education and workforce development challenge, and I hope that we can address it together. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. O’Brien. Mr. O’BRIEN. You know, we have talked just a few minutes ago about the challenges of overcoming the mentality that focuses on the first cost, and I think that has a lot—I think we can take a look at the national—the lack of ability to move forward with a clear national energy strategy—in the same way that there is a limited political accountability for some of the consequences of maintaining the status quo, which, in the short run may be lowest first cost. If you took a national energy strategy that was more akin to a life-cycle cost, the long-term consequences, you would end up with a portfolio that would include a much heavier dosage of energy efficiency and onsite renewable energy. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Stewart or Mr. Prindle, would you like to respond quickly? Mr. Prindle, apparently, had the answer to the question so—— Mr. PRINDLE. The biggest obstacles to a national energy policy— I was going to say ignorance and apathy, but Mr. Harris spoke about education. I think he is really right, there. I think what we really have to grapple with in this new era of expensive energy and serious climate threat is we need to get past the argument about regulation versus markets. You know, there is this kind of split; you either have a free market energy policy or you have a regulated. And we don’t see it that way. We think that smart regulation actually helps markets work better. And let’s get past this idea of the free market is going to do it or you need to regulate every facet of a marketplace. We have seen States in particular come up with very smart regulatory policies that have helped their economies and helped their energy industries. And we can find that sweet spot where regulation actually drives markets forward. I think that is a message we need to get across. Mr. STEWART. I would simply add to the education discussion, is that a better understanding that the decisions we make today have a ripple effect on out through the decades for 50, 60, 70 years, and shortsightedness with which we tend to make these decisions really will be the problem that future generations will come back to us and ask, What were we thinking?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 245

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks all of our witnesses here in this panel today, and this concludes the testimony and the questions from the second panel. We would ask those who are on the third panel testifying—I would expect that we would be back here in the Chair in about 15 minutes and would ask you to be prepared to give your testimony. I will give an opening statement—a brief, very brief opening statement, and go directly to the third panel. But, again, gentlemen we thank you for being here and pre- senting your thoughtful testimony and answering the questions of the Members. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. OBERSTAR. [Presiding.] The Committee will resume. And Mr. Costello, Chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation will return to continue chairing the proceedings. I regret that the announcement I made at the last vote was that this was the last vote that we were going to have of this kind. But there is still a disruption proceeding on the House floor that may go on for some time yet, a matter that we thought had been resolved at the leadership level, but there is still a Member proceeding on his own agenda, and we have no idea what is going to happen. So I would propose that we bring the Water Resources panel to the table. It will make for a long table. But make sure that we can get everybody together. And we will hear all testimony and then proceed with any questions that Members may have. So are all—is Mr. Brandt, Mr. Fitzgerald—I think there were some who had time constraints. We did not anticipate this to be a marathon 7- or 8-hour hearing today. But those are matters beyond our control. So we will begin in the order in which the witnesses are listed. And perhaps—no, we will just go through the Aviation panel and then the Water Resources panel. I think that is the best way to proceed. TESTIMONY OF JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANS- PORT ASSOCIATION; GREG PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIR- PORT COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL—NORTH AMERICA; MI- CHAEL McQUADE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; AND RICHARD L. ALTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMER- CIAL AIRCRAFT ALTERNATE FUELS INITIATIVE Mr. OBERSTAR. So, Mr. May, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your patience throughout this long day. And welcome to the legislative process. Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This evening I would like to emphasize three key points. First, commercial airlines are extremely carbon efficient. Second, we are committed to driving our carbon efficiency even further. Third, as commercial aviation is a global industry, the United States should continue to support efforts by the International Civil Aviation Organization to further address aviation’s contributions to climate change. Recent media reports from Europe have raised alarm bells about commercial aviation’s contributions. Some rhetoric is extreme. Air transportation has been categorized as sinful.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 246 Let me try and set the record straight. Commercial aviation contributes about 2 percent of domestic U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to our economy, driving about 1.2 trillion in economic activity, 6 percent of the country’s economic output, over 11 million jobs, nearly 9 percent of employment. We have been able to deliver more value to the economy and reduce our carbon footprint because we are constantly improving fuel efficiency. Since 2001, commercial aviation has achieved a 35 percent improvement. That is both in fuel efficiency and in our carbon footprint. U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue the trend. Fuel is our largest cost, over $38 billion in 2006. But even in these highly constrained financial times, we have invested heavily in fuel-efficient capital and technology. In the next 3 years we are going to receive over 500 new highly fuel-efficient aircraft from companies, the likes of which are Boeing and Airbus, who have been doing a terrific job in improving their own technology. We have relentlessly pursued operational opportunities to reduce fuel burn, including cutting-edge software to permit more direct routes, aircraft weight reduction programs, and improve ground operations. There is a need for congressional leadership in three areas. First, you should ensure that this country’s inefficient air traffic control system is modernized to permit more direct routing, saving fuel and emissions. Modernization can improve fuel efficiency—— Mr. OBERSTAR. Excuse me, Mr. May, could you bring your micro- phone just a little closer to you? Mr. MAY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. MAY. Modernization will improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 10 to 15 percent on every single flight. Second, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA and FAA environmental aeronautics research and development. Third, we urge congressional action to spur further commercial development of alternative fuels. We urge Congress to move forward with legislation on all of these points. A significant part of ATA carriers’ operations are international, and U.S. airlines compete vigorously in that format. In light of our global nature, ICAO has endorsed the use of voluntary measures, and adopted formal guidance on voluntary agreements and operational measures to reduce fuel burn and emissions, which ATA and its member carriers helped develop. Given these efforts, countries such as Japan, Canada, both of whom are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and whose economies are closely aligned to the United States, have also chosen to address aviation greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary agreements. So I close by asking you to note the achievements of the industry in reducing fuel burn and emissions. And while we are asking for congressional leadership, we are not asking you to work for us; we are asking you to work with us in addressing the environmental concerns. Thank you. Mr. COSTELLO. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. May. Mr. Principato.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 247

Mr. PRINCIPATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing Airports Council International-North America to present the views of the Nation’s airports on these important environmental issues. As has already been stated, the aviation sector contributes a very small amount to greenhouse gas emissions, yet ACI-North America members are doing their part to minimize impacts on climate change, just as they do in other areas such as water quality, noise, and local air quality. Greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies employed by airports have included investing in and promoting the use of alternative fuel and low-emission vehicles and energy saving equipment, recycling building and construction materials, waste and water, improving the operational efficiency of the airfield and landside systems, acquiring green power, and providing emissions- reducing services for aircraft at the gate. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport has converted nearly all of its fleet of vehicles to low-emission or alternative fuel. Portland and Denver have conducted inventories to determine their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Los Ange- les has an onsite hydrogen fuel generating system. Numerous airports have installed 400-hertz power and preconditioned air units at gates to minimize emissions from aircraft auxiliary and ground power units. Sacramento installed a jet fuel pipeline to eliminate emissions from fuel truck traffic. Airports have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by implementing initiatives to reduce waste disposal and energy use. Last year, Terminal A at Boston became the first airport terminal in the world to be certified by the U.S. Green Building Council as meeting the requirements for LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environ- mental Design. Several other airports are currently working toward LEED certification for new or renovated terminal projects, including Indianapolis and Oakland. Sustainability programs and environmental management systems, EMS’s, are also becoming increasingly widespread at airports across the U.S. as mechanisms to minimize their environmental footprint. Chicago O’Hare has developed this Sustainable Design Manual to guide its entire modernization program. Miami-Dade, Westchester County, and Denver have also implemented EMS’s. On the industry level, the Airport Cooperative Research Program has provided a valuable resource for airports in helping to better understand and address many of the environmental issues facing the industry. Now, to further support these efforts, ACI has advocated a number of very specific ideas. We are working very closely with the staff on a number of them. Rather than take the time to go through each of them, because we have spent a good deal of time working with the staff on AIP pilot programs and so forth to promote energy efficiency, low-emission vehicles and that sort of thing at airports, I just want to assure you that we are working very closely with the staff on these matters. I want to close by making two specific specific points: Number one, asking you to consider making ACRP permanent at the administration’s requested level of $15 million, and also supporting the designation of $5 million for much-needed environmental research;

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 248 and also, airports do support Next-Gen initiatives that will make the air traffic control system more efficient, both en route and on the ground, and reduce emissions and noise. So with that let me close, and offer to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. McQuade. Mr. MCQUADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I am Michael McQuade. I am the senior vice president for science and technology at United Technologies Corporation. I am very pleased to testify today. The approach Congress and businesses together adopt to tackle the climate change issues present both challenges and opportunities for the Nation. Let me tell you a little bit about UTC. We are a $50 billion global company, a diversified company, headquartered in Hartford, Con- necticut. Our chairman and CEO likes to say that our entire business is about combating gravity and the weather. We make things go up and down, we make things go hotter and colder. The common denominator in everything we do is the conversion of energy into useful work, whether it is in elevators or air conditioners or in the aerospace industry. So we are highly alert to the energy and conservation agenda for transportation and stationary applications. Through a series of technology process and policy initiatives in the company during the period from 1997 to 2006, UTC reduced our absolute energy use by 19 percent, even as we doubled the size of our company. So we believe we bring a credible voice to the policy debate, as we have been a leader in addressing climate change by reducing energy use in our global operations and incorporating energy efficient innovations in our products. Aviation is a global industry. On any given day, an airplane can literally be in multiple countries and on multiple continents. You have heard already from other witnesses about the importance of ICAO. We want to echo those remarks. ICAO, with its 190 contracting member states, is the place to establish guidance and policy to address global environment issues. We are an active participant with ICAO, and we support global solutions to global problems. We remain firmly committed in our support to alternate fuel initiatives, and participate fully in the work my colleague, Rich Alt- man from CAAFI, will describe next. At the same time, UTC believes the more immediate path to lower CO2 emissions for aviation is through energy efficient engine gains. Our Pratt & Whitney business makes military and commercial aircraft engines, and we are taking a leadership role in developing new technologies, such as our unique geared turbofan, that will offer significant improvements in fuel efficiency and thereby directly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Pratt & Whitney will have in place production- ready engine technology for the next generation of single-aisle aircraft. Key elements of our technology include the geared turbofan, low-emission combustor technology known as TALON, an advanced high-pressure compressor, and a suite of new high-pressure turbine technologies. This unique engine configuration offered by the geared turbofan will deliver 12 percent reduction in fuel burn over best current sin-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 249 gle-aisle engines, a 55 percent reduction in NOX emissions over the ICAO 2008 standard, a 20 percent reduction in noise over ICAO chapter 4 standards, and a 40 percent reduction in engine maintenance costs. And just to note, a 12 percent reduction in the aviation industry fuel usage would save over $14 billion a year, a figure which would exceed the current profitability of the industry and lead to increased energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We are working in other areas to improve engine efficiency and reduce aircraft emissions. During the course of normal operations, airborne material is ingested into an aircraft engine and deposited on the internal parts. As you can imagine, over time this material builds up and leads to a drop in fuel efficiency. This performance deterioration can be restored by regular engine washing, which his- torically has been a very long process, using toxic chemicals. Pratt & Whitney has made this once labor- and time-intensive process operationally efficient with our environmentally friendly EcoPower Engine Wash System. Washing every engine airline system twice a year with EcoPower could save over half a billion gallons of fuel, the equivalent of 10 million pounds, or 5 million tons of carbon dioxide. Major sources of air pollution at our airports are not limited to aircraft operations. Ground vehicles, automobile shuttles and public transportation for people and goods, baggage handling, maintenance repair, all contribute to the energy and emission footprint. We see fuel cells as a solution for this component of airport emissions. With more than 40 years of experience, UTC Power is the world leader and only company that develops and produces fuel cells for stationary transportation and space applications. Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity with only two byproducts, heat that can be used for downstream heating, cooling and clean water. Fuel cells and other clean power technologies can be used to reduce air emissions for buses and ground support equipment, terminals, and adjacent hotel operations, backup power. Let me summarize. Energy conservation presents the greatest near-term opportunity to reduce both consumption and emissions and should be a high priority for our Nation. UTC is investing heavily, and working in partnership with various government agencies to bring climate-friendly technologies to the aviation industry. The Federal Government should increase its focus and investment in existing and emerging alternate energy efficiency technologies, should support the VALE portion of the FAA reauthorization proposal, and invest in those technologies that have a high potential to be affordable and cost-effective to lead to market acceptance. This is why we focus on fleet applications for fuel cells rather than the distributive automotive industry. We look forward to working with Members of this Committee and other stakeholders to ensure the commercialization of these advanced energy efficient technologies. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes Mr. Altman.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 250

Mr. ALTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Com- mercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative with the opportunity to testify on the compelling issues of climate change and energy independence as relates to aviation. It is particularly satisfying to me to be represented on the panel with three of our sponsors, the Air- port Council International, ATA and United Technologies, as part of the Aerospace Industries Association. CAAFI is a data-gathering and communications process that seeks to increase both the quantity and the quality of dialogue among its airline, airport, manufacturer and FAA sponsors. It also seeks to engage multiple government, industry and university stakeholders. The fundamental belief of the sponsors in forming the CAAFI process is that aviation is data-driven and relatively small in size, allowing it to benefit from such a process. CAAFI sponsors and stakeholders recognize the data they develop and collect, in the hands of key analysts and decision-makers in such matters as safety, security, and the environment, will be a catalyst for informed and expedited solutions which serve all components of the supply chain well. Such clarity of solutions and messages, we believe, will spur suppliers to invest in solutions suitable for commercial aviation. The goal is to make our relatively small sector of the transportation market a customer of choice for alternative fuels. My role as executive director is simply to be the facilitator of that process. While I am an independent contractor to our FAA sponsor in this role, my task is to balance the interests of all four supply chain sectors. So getting to the aviation fuel option specifically, we are evaluating three fundamental categories. One, largely non-renewable from coal and gas, could be available in the zero to 5-year time frame, in some quantity; I want to make clear, not for all the total supply. As can be expected, there is far more data available on these sources, and consequently more information that will be discussed regarding both the technical and business perspectives. In near- to mid-term, 5 to 15 years, biodiesel renewables and some more difficult to extract non-renewable sources, such as shale oil, are possible, according to the United States Air Force Science Advisory Board. Blends of renewable and non-renewable sources can be brought into play in this time period. Some analysis of how deployment can be effective in this area have been brought to CAAFI’s attention, and I will address those very briefly. Long term, 15 years and beyond, biofuel renewable candidates from a variety of alternative processes could be targets for aviation. Let me give you a very brief summary of those three categories, both from the R & D certification and qualification status, the environmental status, and also what the business scenario looks like for each. In the case of the certification qualification of Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid or gas-to-liquid fuels, two specific types; one, Syntroleum, that flew last year on a B-52, and Sasol, a coal-to-liquid derivative, have been tested. The testing is complete to industry standards now, and could be qualified by midyear. There will be created a generic specification for coal-to-liquid or gas-to-liquid. Any Fischer-Tropsch process will be completed by the end of the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 251 year. And then lastly, within the next year, about 100 percent will follow. In fact, the CO2 output of this particular item without coal capture or without carbon capture and sequestration is, in fact, worse. However, most of the plants that are being contemplated do have provision for sequestration. And in addition to that, they have the ability to use the carbon in some cases. Local air quality is extremely important in these cases, and the Fischer-Tropsch fuels we are talking about have significantly better attributes in terms of particle matter, and also in terms of sulfur, which is particularly significant in that it allows the same fuel to be used in ground equipment, could conceivably be used in jet aircraft. There have been significant studies done by the Department of Energy, and it shows affordable cost in this particular area. There is a limit in current production, and therefore incentives would be required to move forward. There are also, in the case of Fischer- Tropsch fuel, there is an opportunity to add biomass to that fuel. And those particular provisions, if they are at the 20 percent level, will create a significant opportunity. It is very significant, I think, to Mr. Costello that one of the studies that was done has been done by Princeton University in southern Illinois, Fayette County, showing the economics of combined Fischer-Tropsch and agricultural capability and how that could work. Lastly, the last option that we are looking at here are oils, vege- table oils, fuel from algae. That particular type of technology is further out in time, and the economic case for those types of renewables has yet to be made. I think it is important that it be looked at in similar depth to what’s been looked at in the case of the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid fuels. So with that, I will leave with one final statement. And that is that the FAA authorization requests—and this was mentioned by Greg—in terms of the ACRP program, is extremely important in terms of the Clean Research Program that they have indicated they will spend on alternative fuels. Those two things the people who I work with consider to be right-sized and totally appropriate and should go forward in the reauthorization. Thank you. Mr. COSTELLO. If the Chair would yield? Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. [Presiding.] Yes. Mr. COSTELLO. Let me thank all four of you for your testimony. We will have questions for you concerning your testimony. At this time the gentlelady from Texas, who chairs the Water Re- sources Committee, will recognize the panel here to testify for water resources, Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And let me thank both panels for being so patient today to stay here all day. And I am going to call out of order, because Mr. Fitzgerald has to leave to get a plane. And he goes to Houston, Texas. And being from Texas, I am taking that liberty. I gave my opening statement about 1:30 today because that is the time that I was supposed to be up. And I came in here from another Committee and didn’t learn until after that that was just a question period for the first panel. So thank you for being here. And Mr. Fitzgerald, you can make what statement you would like.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 252 And then we will get them to submit any questions they might have so you can get out on time. TESTIMONY OF STEVE FITZGERALD, CHIEF ENGINEER, HAR- RIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, HOUSTON, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES; BRIAN RICH- TER, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL FRESHWATER INITIATIVE, THE NA- TURE CONSERVANCY; ALF W. BRANDT, PRINCIPAL CON- SULTANT, COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY; AND LINDA STROUT, DEPUTY CEO, PORT OF SEATTLE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMER- ICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you very much. And on behalf of the Na- tional Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, or NAFSMA, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony today. NAFSMA represents more than 100 local and State flood and stormwater management agencies. Our members are on the front line, protecting their communities from loss of life, and reducing flood damages to homes and businesses. Scientific analysis and interpretation of climate, weather and stormwater runoff data is of fundamental importance for the planning, design and operation of stormwater and flood protection facilities. Historical data and events are used by scientists and engineers to estimate risks and levels of protection for existing and future flood protection systems. Other factors clearly influence the decision of how to provide protection, such as lives at risk, damages avoided, environmental impacts, costs and ability to pay. So how does climate change affect local stormwater management agencies? It comes down to deciding whether to include climate change as a factor in estimating risk and levels of protection to size future flood protection facilities or modify existing ones. How much of the calculation should be based on historical data and how much on future climate projections? Presently, very few of our members are considering future climate change because of the many un- knowns. NAFSMA has five recommendations for the Committee. Number one. At the Federal level, continue the targeted climate change research to establish public policy based on sound scientific research. NAFSMA supports the ongoing Research and Application Initiatives Assistant Secretary Woodley presented to this Com- mittee last Friday. We also support inclusion of State and local officials in federally led research and policy development. All of the impact and much of the cost of any decision to incorporate or not to incorporate climate change as a design factor will be borne by State and local entities. Number two. Provide adequate funding for research and existing programs that address responses to our climate. Specific examples are the USGS stream-gauging programs. These gauges serve as the backbone of our stormwater and flood protection systems, the NOAA, NAFSMA and National Weather Service research efforts, FEMA’s map modernization programs, that better defines risk for our local communities, and FEMA mitigation grant programs. And

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 253 finally, the Corps of Engineers research efforts, water resources studies and projects, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities. Third recommendation. Allow projects to proceed under existing policies and design parameters. We need to provide definitive protection today instead of waiting for future climate conditions yet to be determined. This is in the public health and safety interest of local communities. Four. Once climate change-related policy is adopted, incorporate changes within current policies for planning, approval, funding, implementation, and operation so that the projects will be in place and work as intended when they are needed. Specific suggestions that update the current project evaluation process to give public safety equal standing with the national economic development standard, reduce the time to identify projects by eliminating redundancies and unnecessary steps, such as the Lean Six Sigma Process recently initiated by the Corps of Engineers, and stream- line permitting for operations and maintenance of activities of flood protection facilities. And the final recommendation. Encourage strong and deliberate interagency coordination among Federal agencies. A good example of this has been the recent efforts by the Corps of Engineers and FEMA to address levee safety and flood risk reduction. Together they have initiated the national levee inventory program and a national flood risk management strategy, with active local, regional and State involvement. As climate change issues and impacts are addressed, cooperation and collaboration will be imperative to making sound and informed decisions. And thank you for letting me make this presentation today. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And my staff person here will help you get out of this building if you don’t know it real well. Mr. FITZGERALD. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. We will go back to our regular order, unless someone else is in a real big hurry. Mr. Brian Richter is next. Oh, I am sorry, Dr. Gerald Galloway. Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Can you hear me? Can you put on the slides there, if you would? Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I am Jerry Galloway, President of the American Water Re- sources Association, which is a multidisciplinary group of profes- sionals chartered to deal with water resources, education, research and management. And we are waiting for a slide. Let me continue. My message today is very straightforward. The United States faces significant water resource challenges, and we are not properly addressing these challenges. Climate change is only going to exac- erbate the very challenges we have faced in the past and make it more difficult in the future. Next slide. Next slide. Water resources are a critical component of both our national security and our national economy. And we recognize that. I know the Members of the Committee are very familiar with the challenges illustrated on this slide, ranging from water shortages,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 254 water quality backsliding that is going on, the problems we have with ports and harbors in need of rehabilitation, losses in wetlands and habitat, problems with getting adequate funding for restoration in many areas where ecosystems are in great danger. Water conflicts still abound. Next slide. We also face significant challenges in the flood damage reduction area. The annual flood losses in this country are continuing to grow. Climate change will just make that worse. Next slide. The American Society of Civil Engineers biennial report on the status of our infrastructure clearly indicates that we are giving a very poor job, a grade of D, to the work that is going on. The back- log in annual shortfall of funds necessary for this infrastructure are in the tens of billions of dollars. And, again, climate change will just make this more difficult. Next slide. At the international level, something of importance for our national security, and mentioned earlier today, the U.N. Reports that 5 million people, mostly children, each year will end up having significant problems as a result of the lack of access to water. Next slide. What is interesting and illustrated in this slide is the fact that credible organizations report significant challenges with what water resources will look like in the future. We can see from this slide that we are dealing with increases in water at high altitudes, high latitudes, and in the mid-latitude areas an increase in the shortage of water, further exacerbating the drought that I mentioned earlier. We see that there are problems with the resilience of ecosystems and the challenges that we will face in dealing with sea level rise and the surges that will come as a result of hurricanes and other acts of nature in these coastal and riverine areas near the coasts. Next slide. Next slide. I think the major challenges in this area can be seen in coastal Louisiana, where the impacts of climate change increased the surge heights and increased elevations as a result of climate change make the challenges they already face even more difficult. Next slide. The work that is going on on examining the protection of Lou- isiana will become increasingly more important as we get more information and understand better what climate change is actually going to mean. Next slide. The AWRA conducted three water policy dialogues over the past 4 years at the request of 10 Federal agencies and 49 governmental organizations. These dialogues brought together experts from around the country to discuss our Nation’s water challenges. And it is important to note that as they developed the consensus, they represented all parts of the country as we moved forward to discuss the issues. The general conclusions are—— Next slide. -- the Nation is operating without a sound understanding of the water challenges we face. We have not had a national water assess-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 255 ment since 1976. And given the impacts of climate change, it is critical that such a national assessment be undertaken. Second, the efforts to deal with water lack focus and immediate attention. Our Nation’s approach to dealing with water has been ad hoc on a project basis versus a systems and a watershed basis and needs to be reformed. Next slide. The participants in the National Water Policy Dialogues concluded that the administration and Congress should work with Governors and leaders of the country to develop broad principles for water management. We don’t have a vision. We don’t have a national vision. We don’t need a Federal vision. And there was a strong sense that the center of gravity for water issues should rest at the State level, as the Federal Government should provide support, with the States leading the way. They also determined that there should be better coordination of water resource activities among Federal agencies and within the Congress, and that the administration must encourage policies that promote watershed planning, and that ensure that our Nation’s scientific talent is put to good use. Next slide. With specific respect to climate change, the Dialogue believes that Congress and the administration should provide adequate funding to Federal agencies to carry out climate change impact analyses for the planning of new projects, and most importantly, for the operations of those that are currently in existence. They have the authorization, but not the funding. And lastly, that Congress should closely examine the allocation of funds for water resources infrastructure. Our current situation points to the failure of current funding levels to adequately deal with the problems we now have. And climate change is just going to make that situation worse. Next slide. In sum, let me say that the stewardship of the Nation’s water resources is being neglected. And the manner in which we deal with water issues and climate change in specific terms is dysfunc- tional. We urge you to initiate substantive efforts to develop a co- ordinated, collaborative national, not Federal, approach to preserving and protecting our water resources, our infrastructure, and the ecosystems they support. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Mr. Brian Richter? Mr. RICHTER. Yes. Madam Chairman and Members of the Com- mittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the impacts of climate change on our water resources. My name is Brian Richter, and I am the director of the Global Freshwater Ini- tiative for The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization that protects ecologically important places for nature and for people. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and in more than 30 other countries. While The Nature Conservancy’s mission is focused on sustaining the Earth’s diversity of plants and animals, we know

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 256 the protection of ecosystems is also critical to human well-being. Therefore, we are gravely concerned about the potential for climate change to substantially disrupt the things that everyone in this room cares about: our economy, our culture, and the ecosystems that support our way of life. Failing to protect freshwater and coastal ecosystems from these climate changes will have tangible societal, cultural, and economic consequences. That is why The Nature Conservancy is calling for legislation and policies to address greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a strong, cost-effective cap and market-based program to reduce emissions. In addition, we believe that it is critical that such a program help to reduce emissions from deforestation and support land conservation by crediting activities that deliver sustainable, high-quality emissions reductions and carbon sequestration. Now, we also urge your support for adaptation programs that can help ecosystems, and the human communities reliant upon them, to cope with the impacts of climate change. As we all know, even immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not avert the expected climate impacts of gases we have already put into the atmosphere. Therefore, we need to ready ourselves for the associated changes that will come. To meet human and ecosystem needs in the face of climate change, we must do a much better job of comprehensively managing our water resources. Dr. Galloway made these points very eloquently a moment ago. First, we need to assimilate much better data on the availability of water and how it is being used. Today, most States possess only a rudimentary understanding of who is using water, how much they are using, when they use it, and how much is left for other purposes. Fortunately, there are promising efforts underway in a number of States, including Texas, which has developed state-of- the-art computer tools to help support water management. To ensure that all States have a similar ability to account for and manage water resources comprehensively, we must substantially increase State and Federal investment in basic water accounting, particularly for the U.S. Geological Survey and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive water management also involves improved management of our existing water infrastructure, such as the more than 2,000 large Federal dams in this country. By reevaluating current operations of these facilities, we can better serve human needs and adapt to changing conditions, while also protecting our natural ecosystems. For example, through a national partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers, called the Sustainable Rivers Project, The Na- ture Conservancy and the Corps are working together to improve the management of 27 dams in nine different river basins across the country. Together we are finding abundant opportunities to better protect the river ecosystems affected by these dams, while continuing to provide flood control, water supply, hydropower generation, and recreational benefits. The second issue I would like to address is substantially greater flooding of our Nation’s coasts and inland waterways that is expected to occur with climate change. To adequately respond to more

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 257 frequent and intense flooding, our flood management efforts must account for the services that are provided by healthy natural ecosystems. By allowing rivers to once again safely spill onto their original floodplains in places where they have been leveed or chan- nelized in a carefully managed manner, we can restore critically important natural flood storage, while simultaneously increasing the production of fish and waterfowl, recharging our groundwater aquifers, and naturally purifying water as it flows through flooded wetland areas. By increasing the flood storage capacity of natural floodplains, some of the reservoir capacity presently being used to store flood- waters could be made available for storing water supplies that will be needed during more extreme droughts in the future. The Conservancy has already begun innovative projects that use nonstructural approaches to flood protection needs. In Hamilton City, California, along the Sacramento River, we are working to improve flood protection for a town whose only flood defense is a de- graded levee that may not even hold during a 10-year flood. This project will replace the existing levee with a setback levee that will provide vastly improved flood protection, while reconnecting the floodplain to the river. This win-win project increases the flood storage capacity of the river basin and provides critical habitat for wildlife. We must replicate projects like this around the country. To enable more of this work, we must increase investment in aquatic ecosystem restoration and create incentives that discourage development of critical floodplains and coastal wetlands. Finally, there is perhaps no smarter action that can be taken today than to simply do everything we can to preserve our future options and flexibility. When we allow people to use all of the water available from a river, we put those water users and the ecosystems they depend upon at great risk as the climate and associated water availability begins to change. The Nature Conservancy is working with leading scientists around the world to develop new decision tools to inform water managers about the volume of water that must be left in a river to support its health and our future needs. Many States are ready and willing to use these new tools, but they will need help and support from the Federal Government. In closing, it is important that all of our policy and on-the-ground adaptation measures recognize the need to maintain healthy and resilient ecosystems that preserve the ability to adapt in the face of climate change and continue to meet the needs of both humans and wildlife. If we do, we can ensure that our rivers will continue to sustain us and inspire us. I want to thank you for your attention and this opportunity to share our thoughts with you today. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Mr. Brandt. Mr. BRANDT. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Alf Brandt. I am the water law and policy expert for the California State As- sembly, and I am here to talk a little bit about the policy. I am not a scientist, but we are—we have started a conversation about climate change in California and its water resources. And it is the fact that we have started the conversation. No, we don’t have final

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 258 answers, and no, we don’t have final plans; but we have started the conversation and are starting to do things to respond to it and prepare for it. So that is what I would like to explain. And the first question would be why. Next slide. And part of that is the nature of our system. It is perhaps the most sophisticated water supply and flood system in the world, because it stores and conveys water for hundreds of miles. And this is the same system. Both the flood and the water system are combined. They rely on the same reservoirs and the same rivers to deal with both flood and supply. Next slide. And, of course, going down to the bottom of each of the major rivers in the Central Valley, Sacramento and San Joaquin, is the delta, which is critical to California. Next slide. Yes, it is perhaps some of the most valuable ecosystem, estuary ecosystem on the west coast of North or South America. It is also an agricultural area. But most importantly for this Committee, it is the heart, the true heart of the California water system. From the delta, the urban areas—yes, agriculture gets a lot of its water from here, but most importantly both the Bay Area and San Fran- cisco, as well as Southern California, get about a third of their supply from the delta. It is critical. Next slide. And, of course, the delta is more than just a water conveyance as far as infrastructure goes. It is also—keep going—it is also infrastructure, urban infrastructure, highways, railroads, gas lines, electric lines, major power lines, although things are in the middle of the delta. So infrastructure is a critical part of why the delta is so important. And, of course, it is in the center, it is at the bottom of both streams, it is in the center of—go ahead—it is in the center of the Central Valley and in the middle of what used to be called and known by the Indians as the ″inland sea.″ it is a bowl. And it is—it creates huge challenges, because this used to be, for many months of the year, a huge, perhaps 40 miles wide, 200 miles long, inland sea for much of the year during the wetter months. Go on. Next slide. And what we did is we created these narrow channels, putting it into a narrow channel to wash down gold mining-era sediment and scour out those channels and get rid of that sediment to protect us, protect farmland at that point. Of course, next we put houses right next to it, as well at this point, thousands of houses across the Central Valley. Next slide. And of course this sophisticated system, the important part for climate change is the use of energy, use of power for our water system. About 19 percent of California’s electrical energy is used by the water system, both to convey it, to treat it, to clean it up after it is used, before it is put back in. So it is a substantial amount of our energy is used by the water use—by the water system. So it is a critical tie to climate change. Next slide.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 259 Of course, add to that climate change, and you can see here some of the—just one the many graphs that we have seen of showing how much climate has changed in California. This goes up through 1995. And you can see some significant differences. Since then it continues. That trend continues. Warmer temperatures leads to less snow, more rain, earlier spring runoff, and for the purpose of this Committee, the interests of this Committee, that can lead to more floods. Next slide. Loss of our snowpack is critical to us, both to the water supply as well as the risk to floods. You can see this is a slide I chose— this is the worst case I have seen—that at the end of the century, we may be looking as bad as 11 percent of our snowpack. And we rely on the snowpack, both for water storage, seasonal water storage, so it comes down slowly so it can feed irrigation during the summer, as well as for flood protection. Because the more that comes down as rain, the higher the flood levels. Next slide. And that is consistent with what we have seen in the 100 hundred years, a continuing trend going up as far as seriousness of the floods over the last 100 years. And that trend has advanced in the last 10 to 15 years. Next slide. Of course, that has led to greater awareness of the real risk to people from floods. This slide shows the depths. In some of these places it can be very deep. The dark blue shows more than 9 feet. Some of those areas are as deep as 20 feet deep. That is about the height of a 2-story house. That is how deep some of our floodplains are. So it is a serious risk for us. And climate change added to that makes it a major threat for us. Next slide. Of course, at the bottom of the system, suffering one of the greatest threats, is a delta which is created by a bunch of levees surrounding islands that were created in the last 150 years. It is an area that has subsided. So many of these islands are below sea level. The orange areas that you see on this map are below sea level or below the water level right next to the island. As sea level, rise goes up and other kinds of influences, the floods coming down, all those make these levees more at risk. These are all private levees. These are not State or Federal levees. Next slide. And, of course, the risk for us, for our water supply, and for flooding if these levees collapse—say if there were an earthquake and many of these levees collapsed—this would turn into an inland sea, a very deep inland sea, no longer that wetland that was shown, but very much of an inland sea. Next slide. So that brings us to what we are doing. Keep going. This shows all the things that we have been talking about, we have been looking at, starting in the last year or so. Now, we haven’t passed all these bills, but we have started the conversation about how to do it. Our State agencies have already started assessing how climate change can be incorporated into it and how we can manage for the uncertainty. We have started planning for climate change and deal-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 260 ing with floods, for instance, allowing for some of the flexibility to allow us to take water off the floodplain, off this river to predict that, and also dealing with floodplain land use so people in these deep floodplains are protected and not putting houses there. And we have had some great success with recycling and conservation, which contributes to reducing the greenhouse gases. And, of course, we are making choices, and we are looking at making choices—we haven’t made them yet—based on climate change information. All that can be helpful. Next slide. So let’s go next slide, to the information about the Federal Gov- ernment. And I will just run through this quickly. I think this has already been talked about. Actually, this is consistent with both Mr. Richter and Dr. Galloway. But it is things that—I think the key point here is the relationship between the State and the Fed- eral agencies on flood needs to change at this point, and particularly for California, whose voters have approved $5 billion in bonds for floods. The nature of the relationship, with the Corps not having the money that it used to have, we cannot afford to have them be in total control and get in the way of us trying to make some fundamental changes and choices about climate change. That may be different than what they have traditionally done. And I think that is the one I want to emphasize most. But just like we have started to incorporate climate change into planning, it is necessary that they start doing it as well. It is key for us to work together on doing this. And I wish you luck. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Ms. Linda Strout, you are the last witness. And that doesn’t mean that your testimony is not very important. You may proceed. Ms. STROUT. Thank you. My name is Linda Strout. I am the deputy CEO of the Port of Seattle, and today I am testifying, however, on behalf of the American Public Ports Association. AAPA represents all major public seaport agencies on the Pacific, Atlantic, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts. We thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Air emissions are an area of growing concern for U.S. public port authorities and the communities in which they operate. And reducing air emissions is a priority for our industry. The Port of Seattle and many AAPA members have been engaged in air quality improvement efforts related to seaports for several years. Recently, those efforts have grown to specifically include greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions related to ports are primarily carbon dioxide, formed whenever fuel is burned. And efforts to reduce these emissions have therefore focused on increasing fuel-use efficiency or the use of alternative fuels. Diesel engines power the yard equipment that handles containerized cargo, such as rubber-tired gantry cranes and yard hostlers, and they also power the trucks, the rail engines and the marine vessels used to bring cargo into and out of our ports. While remarkably efficient and durable, these engines are a significant source of air pollution. There are a number of ways to reduce diesel engine emissions, and ports across the country and across the world are engaged in a wide variety of programs and initiatives to reduce those emissions for their own facilities, their fleets, their vehicles, and their

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 261 dock equipment within their control. Such efforts are detailed in the written testimony, but cluster in four main areas. And those are the use of alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, ultra-low sulfur diesel and blends, and some natural gas forms. Also, the use of electricity. The use of repowering, which is replacing older engines. And finally, retrofitting existing engines. At the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, nearly all of the yard equipment and the port’s own diesel-powered vehicles are fueled by ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel or a blend. At the Port of Seattle, in addition, now, our Shilsole Bay Marina, a 500-slip recreational marina, makes biodiesel available to all recreational boats and tenants. The port of Long Beach is testing three liquefied natural gas yard hostlers, which the port estimates will produce a 60 percent reduction in NOX and an 80 percent reduction in particulate matter over conventional Tier II diesel engines. Electricity is being implemented as a diesel alternative at several ports, including L.A. For several cargo terminals, and in Seattle for its cruise terminals. At most major seaports now, the large cranes used to transfer containers between ships and terminals are all electric, and ports usually provide plugs on terminals for powering refrigerated containers instead of using diesel engines. We are aware that shore- side power for ships is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It is expensive. It requires substantial infrastructure. And if the electricity is produced by a source that is also creating greenhouse gases, then it is not a perfect solution. Repowering equipment that uses older legacy engines is a third strategy that has proven effective, generally by use of on-road engines to replace off-road equipment such as yard tractors. Both New York-New Jersey and L.A. have enjoyed real success in their programs in this regard. The fourth diesel emissions reduction strategy is that of retrofitting older diesel engines with a piece of after-treatment technology such as diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction systems, or diesel oxydation catalysts. An interesting example is the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey retrofitting one of the Staten Island ferries with two types of retrofit technology to achieve a more than 70 percent reduction in NOX. All of these efforts focus on equipment within—that I have just described—focus on equipment within a port’s control by lease or agreement or because it owns equipment. But I would want to spend a couple of moments focusing on the efforts within the port industry. Those are important, but outside of the port control, which is really where we can use help from Congress. Oceangoing vessels are, generally speaking, the most efficient way to move goods. And their demand, therefore, for their services is predicted to rise. Oceangoing vessel owners and operators are taking steps at lower emissions too. Some, like Westwood Shipping Lines, have chosen engines that are certified to reduce emissions. However, because the majority of vessels calling on the U.S. port facilities are foreign flagged, they are not regulated by EPA. The International Maritime Organization, IMO, sets standards for these vessels. In 1997, the IMO, as you all know, adopted Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL. AAPA supports the legislation to implement

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 262 the MARPOL Annex VI treaty as quickly as possible. We applaud this Committee’s leadership in the swift passage of H.R. 802 in this Congress, and we urge you to help ensure that the Senate addresses this issue as expeditiously as well. It is critical that the United States become a party to this treaty, which is the necessary regulatory mechanism to mandate lower ship emissions. Implementa- tion of MARPOL Annex VI is supported by the shipping industry, as well as the port industry. Trucks and rail emissions outside of our fences also are not under port control. While new trucks must comply with EPA’s on- road standards, older legacy engines can contribute dispropor- tionate amount of air emissions. Port authorities do not own the trucks that—in general do not own the trucks that service their terminals, and therefore cannot mandate when older engines are retired or whether they are retrofitted. Another barrier to addressing truck emissions is the prevalence of independent owner-operators, who often simply do not have the capital to invest in expensive new equipment or to upgrade their vehicles before their engines become useless. Therefore, in order to more effectively reduce emissions on the land side of port operations, AAPA encourages Congress to fully fund the Diesel Emis- sions Reduction Act or the D-E-R-A, DERA. This legislation, which was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, would allow for up to 200 million annually for the EPA to fund voluntary emissions reduction projects at ports, some of which I described in construction equipment, in school bus fleets and in the movement of the freight. To date, EPA has funded 11 port-related projects with $1.9 million in Federal funds and 2.5 million in matching funds. Some of the projects have included installing diesel oxydation catalysts on cargo handling equipment at the ports of Philadelphia, Seattle, Houston, Tacoma, the Massachusetts Port Authority, as well as buying low-sulfur fuel for cruise ships in San Francisco. US EPA grant funding also supported the landmark Regional Maritime Emissions Inventory for the Puget Sound region that recently was completed by a collaborative group of air agencies, industry ports, and advocacy groups, and was led by the Port of Se- attle. It is the first of its kind in the Nation, and it is under an agreement, a separate agreement reached with the Vancouver port in B.C. They will do a similar air emissions inventory that will utilize the same modeling so that the entire air shed will be reviewed in concert. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Can you begin to wrap up? Ms. STROUT. Yes. I am right at the end. Finally, the Federal Government can help reduce port-related air emissions through legislation that would encourage short sea shipping by eliminating the double collection of harbor maintenance tax on domestic-only movements. Getting rid of this financial barrier to the coastwide movement of cargo will encourage shippers to move goods by America’s waterways, thereby taking trucks off the Inter- states and reducing air pollution. AAPA wishes to commend Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chair Cummings for their leadership in introducing H.R. 1499. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 263

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And I now will recognize Mr. Costello to begin the first round of questioning. Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Chairlady. Mr. Altman, let me ask you, the Committee heard testimony earlier today from Jonathan Lash with the World Resources Institute. And in his testimony he indicated that coal-to-liquid processing would be much more expensive than gasoline. I wonder if you agree and if you would state your opinion for the record. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, again dealing with aviation, we are not talking about aviation gas. We are talking about a diesel form of fuel. In that particular case, there has been an excellent study done by Scully Capital, under contract to the Department of Energy, the Air Force and the EPA. And the conclusion that was reached was that on crude equivalent with carbon capture that the oil could be—that you could receive this kind fuel at $55 to $58 a barrel and allow the producer to have a 19 percent return on investment. That does not include the sequestration. If you were able to use an enhanced oil recovery, such as might be the case in Southern Illinois, that market would stand on its own. There have been other studies that I have seen. Nothing in terms of the data—and we are only a data collection agency— all the data collection agency says we are now in the ballpark where you can start to have a discussion. That said, to get financing for the major projects there needs to be some level of support beyond the number that is being produced now, while Wall Street Standard and Poor said in order to finance the projects you need to be down in the $40 area on a per-barrel basis in order to support a bond rating at a reasonable level. So I haven’t seen any data. I have heard these words before. And, again, I am only a data collection agent for our sponsors, and the data that we have collected says that it is viable. Mr. COSTELLO. I wonder, for the record, if you might explain the Fischer Tropsch process and how it converts renewables and non- renewables into liquid jet fuel. Mr. ALTMAN. Let me do this very briefly for you and try to put it in simple terms because I am not a chemist; I am a mechanical engineer, so it kind of hurts my cause to be able to do this. But basically what the Fischer Tropsch process does is it results and takes, in conjunction with gassification of solids, it allows with the use of catalysts the use of hydrocarbon chains through a process that simulates when it comes out the actual same output as you get in an oil refinery. So that process has been in use for—since the 1920s. The difference now is that the catalysts that are used and the processes of gassification if we are dealing with solids are much more sophisticated. There is a lot of activities going on in a number of the manufacturing customers here that will allow it to be much more economic. So while it has been around for nearly 80 years, we are in a position now where it can be far more economically than it has been previously. Mr. COSTELLO. I think you indicated in your testimony that it could be approved for use in aviation by the middle of this year. Is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. That is correct. There are two fuels that have been tested; one is a 50-50 blend of Syntroleum. All of the necessary

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 264 R&D has been done in that particular process, including missions measurements, which have shown some very favorable local air quality aspects. The Air Force indicates now that they should be ready about mid-year with that. The testing on 100 percent liquid from the Sasol Corporation was completed in January at United Technologies Research Center where Mr. McQuade is. And that now in conjunction with the other companies that were involved, which included Rolls Royce and also General Electric were all involved, the whole industry was involved, has produced the necessary data to pursue the approvals. And the estimates that have been provided to me by those people indicate that could happen in mid-year as well. That said, you have two point sources. The effort right now of the capping certification qualification committee in conjunction with the Air Force is to put together a generic specification for all fuels of this nature. When the Air Force put out a request for information last year on the acquisition of these fuels, there were 27 qualified suppliers that came into play. So to limit the capability of just Sasol or Syntroleum would not be economically the best situation for us. So a very concentrated effort and great cooperation between the FAA and the Air Force on this right now. And I think it is going to be a very good exercise. The issue is going to be, how do you get sufficient supply. Right now the problem is that if you took all of the plants that are under the DOE planning process and dedicated a third of that to aviation, we still wouldn’t have enough fuel to support O’Hare’s 80,000-barrel-a-day hunger for fuel. Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. McQuade, can you tell us a little bit about the Pratt and Whitney testing of the geared turbo fan and how that turbo fan engine differs from the engines of today? Mr. MCQUADE. I would be happy to. Thank you very much. In a conventional jet engine, the fan, which is the big bladed object on the front, the fan has two responsibilities. It pulls air in through the compressor and turbine for combustion later in the engine. But in a modern bypass engine, a significant portion of that air is taken through, around the outside to generate thrust out of the back of the engine. Turns out a fan really wants to run at a lower speed than a compressor and turbine. You want the fan to run at lower speed, be bigger, to move a lot of air, and move at low speed so it is quieter, to meet the noise requirements for our in city airports. In a normal jet engine, the fan, the compressor and turbine all rotate on the same shaft. It has taken 20 years of technology development to devise a geared means todecouple the rotation of that fan so that gives you the ability to take the compressor and turbine, let them run at a high speed, high-speed turbine could be done, high-speed compressor could be done with a smaller number of parts; therefore they run more efficiently. They reduce the weight, the maintenance requirements. At the same time, the fan now geared to run at a slower speed operates much more efficiently than a normal configuration, runs slower, runs quieter. That is what generates the kind of numbers I talked about before, roughly 12 percent engine burn efficiency reduction, roughly 20 DB noise reduction versus current standards.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 265 So it is a long development program underway. Good testing that is underway right now. It is our expectation it will be available for the next generation aircraft with the air framers they are working on. Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. I thank the Chairman. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. The Chair recognizes Mr. Oberstar. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few quick questions and observations. Mr. May, you were very pointed in your remarks about the EU and emissions trading and emissions tax. In the beginning of April bipartisan Committee Members met with Jacques Barrot, the minister of transport for the European Union, and two members of the European Parliament Committee on Transportation as well as other, the EUROCONTROL, the European aviation safety agency recently established, and many others. We later met with Air France, with the minister of aviation and transportation for France. We made it very clear that whatever Europe does in its sovereign air space is their business, but it is not their business to tell us what to do in our sovereign air space. I acknowledged in the conversation that, in 1990, as Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, we ran 10 years ahead of Europe on emissions—I am sorry, on noise—on noise and that it took Europe 10 years to catch up with us. That was unilateral. But that was our air space. We didn’t attempt to tell Europe what to do in their air space. And we are not going to accept Europe telling us what to do in our air space. That should give you some comfort. Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your position, obviously. We know and respect Mr. Barrot. He is a fine fellow, and we have done a lot of business with him. But the aviation marketplace and the environmental marketplace in the United States is vastly different than it is in Europe. I think that is one of the principal reasons that we have always advocated working with ICAO. And broadly for voluntary standards that is underway. I think the other thing that we appreciate is the fact that you and the other Members of the Committee appreciate that the aviation industry is probably one of the greenest forms of transportation available, and we very much appreciate that support. Mr. OBERSTAR. I would state it was a bipartisan initiative, and Mr. Costello can verify, he was there for every bit of the discussion, and we—but we didn’t say that means hands off on emissions, and made it clear that we are going to have this hearing and Mr. Altman’s testimony is significant but also Mr. Principato. And I pointed this out to the Europeans, that it is not just airplanes; it is what is on the ground at airports. And, furthermore, if you take a look at the world fleet, there are10,000 aircraft worldwide; 5,000 of the world’s commercial aviation fleet is in the United States. Of that 5,000, roughly 10 percent, 500-plus, are in the international trade. That is a small fraction of emissions and of contribution to carbon in the atmosphere. It is not insignificant and it is not to be ignored, but it is one in which there is a concerted effort in the United States, and we welcome Europe in a joint effort with the United States, not on regulation but on research, development, testing, engineering, to bring new fuels, to bring higher-quality en-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 266 gines, higher productivity. Europe should join us rather than simply initiating a regulatory regime. I yield to my colleague, Mr. Costello. Mr. COSTELLO. I couldn’t have said it any better. I mean, the Chairman of the Full Committee was very clear in making that point, and I think the other point that we made as well is that we are not a parliament; that the Congress has a large voice in the policy that will go forward and that we are a co-equal branch of government and not a parliament. I think the message was deliv- ered very loud and clear. I thank the Chairman for yielding. If I can make another point on the issue of talking about the environment and green initiatives. I just want to state that we were at O’Hare International Airport to attend a briefing on the modernization program, and I have to tell you that Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago really should be complimented on what they are doing, not only in the modernization program, what they are doing as far as the green roof of the new air traffic control tower. I think it will be the first in the Nation. And in addition to that, in the construction of the additional runway and the modernization program, they have gone really out of their way to retrofit. It has been a model project, and I would hope that other airports throughout the country would take a look at what Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago has done with the modernization program. Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur. I didn’t have the briefing at O’Hare; I had it here. I concur with your remarks that the initiative at O’Hare is really significant and representative of what airports working with airlines can accomplish. Mr. McQuade, you discussed the engine washing with atomized—what is atomized water? Mr. MCQUADE. Very highly particulate waters, special nozzles. Mr. OBERSTAR. I see what you mean. Sure. I understand that. But the savings in fuel is enormous. Mr. MCQUADE. Yes, it is. It is an enormous savings. Mr. OBERSTAR. Do all airlines engage in this technique? Mr. MCQUADE. The eco power system is a relatively new entry to market. Mr. OBERSTAR. Not that they are all using this particular technology, but as you said, this technology raises the savings. Mr. Alt- man, do you have further ideas on alternative fuels and higher capacity, higher fuel-saving engines? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, not on the engines. I ended that part of my career December 31st and left it to Mike here, working a great deal of the time by the way on the geared fan, which I fully believe in, and it is encouraging to see the support that the corporation is providing it now. So I don’t have any ideas on engines themselves. I will leave that to Pratt and Whitney, GE, and Rolls Royce. In the fuels area, I do think it important that there be an equivalent, so we can talk about data and not broad statements, equivalent look at the renewables side of the equation here. I know Boeing is very committed to looking at oil production, as are the engine companies, as is NASA. I know that Jim made a statement about NASA research. And one of the discussions that I think is important is that NASA continued work in this area. It is extremely important. They are putting about $3 million this year into the process. We need to make sure that continues to happen, go forward, and it is

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00304 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 267 not all left to the FAA and that NASA continues to do this work. I know that is not the jurisdiction of this Committee, but I think it is critical. I would very much like to see the next initiative of DOE in partnership perhaps with the Agriculture Department, which I know has some interest in this area, to look at renewable fuels and just how that could work economically in a similar way to what Scully Capital had done. Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the challenge is getting the energy output, the power output per pound of fuel comparable to that of today’s—— Mr. ALTMAN. That is. The other point I should make for aircraft fuel, aircraft fuel is very different, obviously, and it’s specification is much tighter for safety reasons. There are two primary reasons why biofuel needs to be looked at. One is the freezing point of the temperature. The reason there is no discussion of ethanol in our business and some of the other processes is simply because the freeze point of the fuel is too high. Mr. OBERSTAR. We heard that earlier in the day with railroads. Mr. ALTMAN. When you fly up 30,000, 40,000 feet in very low speed conditions, it is even more important. The other thing that is not mentioned as often is the significance of what we refer to as thermal capacity. And the ability of the Fischer Tropsch fuels we are looking at right now to absorb a lot more heat in the fuel without creating a maintenance problem for fuel nozzles. This is very important on modern engines and modern airplanes because there is a lot more power offtakes. For example, in the military, the next version of a military aircraft will probably get ten times as much heat rejection to manage as a JSF airplane right now. The Fischer Tropsch fuels go in the right direction for that, including the use of bio mass. The fuels that NASA has tested so far in the bio area go in the wrong direction, so thermal capacity is actually reduced. It is extremely important that the technical side of the biofuels effort continue and we do the economics in parallel, but right now, there is a gap in that area, particularly looking at things like vege- table oil, algae, which is a form of fuel that is being looked at, and you are so very right about the quantities that may be available from the bio measures. There just really hasn’t been enough study done. There will be more data coming out from both the Air Force and DOE here I am told within the next month. They are doing some additional studies looking very hard, certainly at the bio mass side of the equation. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. I would say to the aviation panel that suggestions that you may have for legislative initiatives, Mr. Costello is continuing with a series of hearings on the reauthorization. We are also at the same time—the Full Committee with all the Subcommittees—participating, preparing an agenda of legislation for the leadership’s overall energy initiative to reach the floor in July. We will have—our goal is to have a legislative package by the end of June so it can be submitted for this general initiative. Ideas you have, we would like you to get those into the Aviation Subcommittee and to the Full Committee as well to initiate that. As to the water panel, they had very specific suggestions, we would like to invite you to make those recommendations, and of course

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 268 the statements that have you already submitted have been a wealth of knowledge about the subject matter. I have no further questions, Madam Chair. We might dismiss the aviation panel and proceed with questions for the water panel. Thank you. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Richter, can you expand on the planning tools that were developed for the Texas water planning program? Mr. RICHTER. Yes, Madam Chairman. I am very happy to do so because I think this is a great area where the great State of Texas can take pride in how they are approaching water resource management. I think there are probably three things to highlight about the Texas approach. One is that they have invested considerably in collecting information about who is using water, where they are using it, how much they are using it and compiling that information into a computer model that can be used to inform decision- making. Very, very important investments made in that respect. The second factor is that they have facilitated stakeholder participation throughout the State, 20 different watershed planning groups that have been working on making decisions about what they want their water future to look like, what kind of protection of the natural environment, what type of water development facilities need to be built. And this is an opportunity for fishermen and farmers and government leaders to interact with each other in making those decisions about the future of the State. The third area is that Texas has shown true leadership in thinking about how to protect the river system’s natural environment through providing what we refer to as environmental flow protection. In other words, how much water and what timing of water flows is necessary to remain in the rivers in order to sustain the health of those rivers. I think this really springs from the fact that Texans have a deep and abiding love for their rivers, and they use them for fishing and recreation and scenic attraction, and it is a mainstay of the tourism industry, as you know. I think that they are appropriately putting, placing adequate value on the protection of the natural environment while they are trying to meet all of these other water needs. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Can this model be expanded nationally, do you think? Mr. RICHTER. Yes. I think the basic approach certainly can be. Not to suggest that there aren’t some other States that are doing an excellent job of management as well, but I think, again, the three points that I emphasized and in particular the investment in the data collection so that they really understand how much water is available, how much water is flowing through their streams. A couple of other presenters placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of investing in data collection and data collection technologies. The U.S. Geological Survey as well as the State water agencies are very, very important providers of that type of information, and without that type of information, we simply cannot make informed decisions about their future use of water supplies. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What about how the levee setbacks can benefit eco systems and flood control?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 269

Mr. RICHTER. The basic idea here is that, in some instances, through our efforts to manage floods or control floods, that we have really enclosed or encased the rivers in many places so narrowly that it is beginning to cause some problems. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the levees to hold back the floods. But, more importantly, it takes away the natural abilities of a flood plain to store flood water. And so the idea is that, as you move those existing levees back away from the river, you are creating a lot of natural space out in the flood plain to store those flood waters. The win-win benefits though come from the fact that, by doing so, you allow the river to behave more like a natural river. And that is very good for the wildlife that is dependent upon the river, very good for water quality benefits, and the river begins to function as a more healthy river when you move those levees back. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Dr. Galloway, would you like to comment on that? Mr. GALLOWAY. I would certainly agree with my colleague; I think it is a real challenge. Many levees in this country are acci- dents of their birth. They grew into a levee, and they were on the bank in their precarious positions. The challenge, in many places, is homes are next to those levees. So how do you accommodate the levee setback without a major real estate action? That is what is taking place in several areas. Clearly where it is possible in rural areas where it has not been developed, levee setbacks make great sense, and you can see that happening in the State of California. They are looking at ideas like that. I think it has to be something to be considered. The challenge is in areas where it is highly developed, it is very difficult to do so. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Mr. Brandt, we don’t know exactly what climate change impacts are going to be so should the Federal Government wait until we are sure on exactly what climate change impacts will be before we start to—— Mr. BRANDT. I would say, no. In fact, to quote someone just a couple days ago from the Merced Irrigation District, which operates a reservoir and is trying to get a rule change from the Corps, we can’t afford to wait. Things are happening; change is already happening, first of all. The second piece is, we may never know, and that is part of the challenge and that is the direction we are going, is we are managing for uncertainty, we are anticipating that we are not going to know exactly what is going to happen. And that is the challenge of using things like setback levees or being able to take water off to prepare for those uncertain floods that come suddenly, and we may need to prepare but in a controlled way to take it off. So I don’t think we can afford to wait until we know because we may never know exactly. We need to start moving to start incorporating the information we do have. For California, we are fortunate to have a lot of information. We have top flight academics and an agency doing a lot of work with this. We have a model, those kinds of things. So we have a lot of information to get started on. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What can other States take from Cali- fornia’s experience?

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 270

Mr. BRANDT. I think the first step and that is the biggest thing that we have had just in the last couple of years, which is starting to acknowledge that things are changing and things have changed rapidly in the last 15 to 20 years and taking that first step to incorporate the information that we do have into their planning and into their project and their choices about what kind of infrastructure that they build. There is a lot of information out there that they can at least start to incorporate. They may not have perfect answers but they can start. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Dr. Galloway, I have been very impressed with your statements. Would you please comment on the state of the Nation’s water monitoring system, if it is adequate, if upgrades are needed? Mr. GALLOWAY. Depends on what you are monitoring for. Cer- tainly, I would say, we are in trouble in many of those areas. A few years back, a couple of years back, the former assistant administrator of EPA, Tracy Mehan, was quoted in a magazine as saying, we can’t tell you what the quality of the water is in this country because we don’t have the assessment and monitoring mechanisms. We know that each year we are losing gauges on our rivers that tell us the history on which we base future projections and deal with the issues of climate change. It is always easy to push aside the maintenance and the upgrade of monitoring systems, and I am afraid we have done that. If we want to have the quality systems necessary to do the adaptive management that my colleague Brian Richter has discussed and do the things that the State of California is moving to understand better climate change, we need more monitoring, and we are not investing in the monitoring we need. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Ms. Strout, we hear a lot about more water into the bodies of water from melting and of course more pollution in the water. How do you think that is going to affect the ports? Ms. STROUT. I think sea level rise is one of the critical areas that ports are concerned about. Clearly ports are located in coastal areas and sea level rise would have a huge impact on dock levels, berthing, where the berths are located, how they should be restruc- tured or reconfigured to handle the heavy equipment that rests on top of them like the huge container cranes and also another area of global warming that is of concern to ports is the impact on rainfall density and wind velocity in storms and the increase in storms that might be expected in the world’s oceans, the disruptions to commerce that might flow from that. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. I think we are at the end of this day, believe it or not. Well, Ms. Napolitano is coming in, from California. Do you have any questions for the water panel? I should have known you would. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. There have been questions in regard to the water issues in California, and since I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, part of it is dealing with the issue of global warming, the precipitation loss, less precipitation, less water delivery to the cities, to the users. And recently, the Governor issued a statement that in essence indicated that he was very much for increasing the funding for above- ground water storage; dams, in other words. Well, all great and

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 271 good except, not only are they exceedingly expensive, they take a long time to put into use. In the meantime, we are losing out on the ability to be able to store, whether it is underground, in storage capacity that our State has. The question then as he addressed the Association of California Water Agencies in the spring conference and indicated, I am not quoting, that investing in conservation only is not enough to solve our water problem alone. Conservation alone does not provide flood protection; conservation alone will not allow us to take full advantage of our ground water storage potential; and conservation alone cannot get California through a prolonged drought either. We need additional above-ground storage. Do you agree with the statement? Mr. BRANDT. Representative Napolitano, well, storage, yes, but surface storage, not necessarily. Surface storage may not be the place we need it. It may not be on the river where we need it. We need to have a lot more flexibility to allow ground water storage. It may be conservation may not be enough. But there are a number of ways. And this is another example where flood and water supply come together because there may be opportunities to have what our Department of Water Resources started calling flood plain storage, in other words, we reduce the flood but at the same time allows it to infiltrate into the aquifer. We already have a sophisticated ground water banking system, although, like Texas, we don’t have a ground water management system in California. But we have that kind of thing and that is what the urban areas are relying on. So there are needs for storage. There is a need for additional storage. But whether that is a surface storage, a very big dam that produces very little yield, I mean, the dam that the Governor is proposing is a million acre-foot size and produces about 165,000 acre-foot in production or in supply every year, or yield. So, no, we don’t need a big dam, but we need to look at a variety of things. And allowing for flexibility, allowing for that uncertainty to take off water wherever it comes down, it may not be on that particular stream where the dam is. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. That is very refreshing to hear because we have discussed the many other areas that we should be looking at and increasing the recycling capability of many of the city’s waste water and being able to find aquifers to store rain water when you have excess flooding water. It bothers me that somehow somebody is convincing the Gov- ernor that, in order to address global warming, we should do thus and such. Well, it is okay if we had lots of time. We don’t. We need to start looking at the imminent threat of another drought cycle and the fact that we must understand how our cities have to start gearing themselves to protect their supply and to be able to have enough for the patterns of growth that California still is experiencing. Mr. BRANDT. Yes, and that is the challenge that ties together climate change and floods that ties together water supply. All those things interact and are interdependent, by doing a diverse set of things, and there is no magic pill, no big project, not like a hundred years ago when Los Angeles built the Owens Valley Project and Mr. Mulholland said here’s the water, take it, and that was it. We

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 272 have to do a number of things. A lot of things these other witnesses have talked about are all part of the answer. Ms. NAPOLITANO. One of the other issues we were just discussing with my water staff is Arizona’s ability to take gray water, rinse, whatever, and be able to get credit to able to put that back into use through a recycling process. Have we looked at other States, what they are doing? To be able to then realize that we may have another source of water that we can clean and put back into use? Mr. BRANDT. Yes, we have been looking at other States as well to see what we can learn, just as I think other States may look at us. The gray water issue is a hugely controversial public health issue that has a long way to go. There are a lot of other ways we can deal with things more effectively, including recycling and conservation, upfront and more quickly. Ms. NAPOLITANO. But we have taken waste water and utilized it. Why can’t we take gray water and clean it and utilize it? Mr. BRANDT. It is the nature of how you use it and the issues of piping. There are a whole range of issues that go into gray water that are not quite the same as recycling. So that is why we haven’t gone there yet at this point in California. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Then maybe something in the future we might consider as we face more drought and more global warming challenges. Mr. BRANDT. There are many things we can do. there are many things that we can do. Gray water may be the thing, but that may be the step a couple steps down the road. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate you being so patient. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Does the Chair- man have any final words? Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I particularly want to express my appreciation to this panel for your forbearance, your patience and understanding of the legislative process; well, maybe not understanding, but at least tolerance of it. It was one of these moments in history that we didn’t expect to be here at 7:00 tonight. Reminds me of just a little historical footnote. In 1964, I was on the staff of my predecessor. The House Judiciary Committee was considering the Johnson administration civil rights bill, and the Ju- diciary Committee was meeting as we have been, except they were in markup. And they started about the same time. They went late into the evening, and it was Representative Wagner of Louisiana who was opposed to everything that the Judiciary Committee was doing to establish civil rights for African Americans, to protect their rights to vote, to exercise their rights in every aspect of society. And Mr. Wagner called a quorum call as frequently as the legislative process on the floor allowed him to do that, which was roughly about the same we had here, about every half hour and sometimes more often. In those days, we had what were called notice quorum calls, where Members would appear on the House floor; and if 100 appeared, that was a quorum of the Committee of the Whole and would suffice. And Members were not recorded, and they would go back to their rooms. As soon as they did, he would

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 273 call a quorum call again, saying that you don’t have 100 Members on the floor. So either you had to maintain 100 Members continuously on the House floor to allow the House to continue its House in the Com- mittee of the Whole, to continue its business, or keep running back and forth. That disrupted the Judiciary Committee. But the Judiciary Com- mittee, both Democrats and Republicans, maintained their presence, and they kept going to the floor, recording their presence, coming back to Committee and, by 11:00 at night, concluded the markup on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Lyndon Johnson signed into law. What was happening on the floor today was nowhere near the moment in significance of what happened in 1964, but it sure disrupted our proceedings. And in the end, there was an underlying issue that turned out to be a rumor, not a reality. And that has been resolved. And then a Member who was disappointed that his amendments were not made in order under the Defense Authoriza- tion Bill, which is now being considered on the floor, has conceded to his leadership that we ought to proceed with the regular order. That explains what was happening, but it also gives you a little historical perspective. Ms. Strout, your testimony was excellent. But you also, as did Mr. Principato for the airports, talk about, discuss initiatives that ports are taking to deal with air emissions in the port jurisdiction. Ultra low sulfur diesel, natural gas and using electricity and com- pressed natural gas stations, all of those contribute to reducing pollutants, particulates and carbon, particularly emissions in the port area. If you have some further suggestions about what the Com- mittee might do to support those initiatives, I would welcome them if you have any further comment. Ms. STROUT. I guess not at this time. I am not sure; was there some particular area that you would like me to address? Mr. OBERSTAR. If you think there are some legislative initiatives that we can include in the climate change package that we are submitting, such as emissions issued by trucks and locomotives that operate at the port, the non-port specific activities, those are things that we can deal with. An interesting initiative that I didn’t have time to raise with the rail panel was, I have been a great advocate for magnetic levitation rail. But it was the Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles, that came up with the great idea. While the technology now has been perfected, it is operating in Japan, operating in test tracks in Germany, and the General Automics, which had the contract with the U.S. Department of Transportation, came to me with the idea that we can now apply it at the Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles, which rather than send rail and truck into the interior to riverside, we could put a mag lev in operation. It is above ground, the footprint is much smaller than rail, and of course vastly less than trucks, put the containers on the mag lev and have a con- tinuos loop bringing empties back to the port and sending full containers inland. And with the rail infrastructure loan program, it can borrow the funds to build a facility, and you have a paying customer, which you don’t have for other proposals that have surfaced

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 274 with the RIF loan program. That makes an awful lot of sense and is another one of the great California initiatives. Ms. STROUT. This is not maybe as far thinking as that, but we certainly do see a need for some way, some mechanism to change out old engines in trucks. Truck diesel particulates is one of the major, major issues, and of course, having rail go someplace is great, but the rail can only go where the rails are set. So trucks will always play a part in the distribution system, but the more we can do because of the high impacts of diesel particulates, the more that we can do to create programs that encourage, that provide incentives and actually provide independent operators who don’t have a lot of capital of their own some way to move, upgrade their truck engines would do a lot of good. And we are actually at AAPA looking ourselves to try to figure out some way to come up with a program that is not overly capital-intensive but could help out in that area. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I welcome your suggestions. Mr. Richter and Dr. Galloway, you both emphasized an issue that I have long advocated, and that is watershed approach to planning and coordinating water resources activities. Mr. Richter, your comment, let rivers flow, rings a responsive cord with me. In the 1850s, when the treaties were being negotiated with the Na- tional Government and the Native American tribes—and I have read a great many of the treaties that apply in Minnesota; six tribes are in my district—they conclude with this remarkable phrase, that the words of this treaty will remain in effect as long as rivers flow. But I think your point, to let rivers flow in their natural mean- dering pattern that naturally creates power absorption channels in the riverbed rather than channeling and rushing and losing the sediment deposition effects that create wetlands and create mitigation forces against floods. Mr. RICHTER. Yes. Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Brandt, your testimony is remarkable. I would say, as a former staff member, that it is typical of the attention to detail that a staff person must do, and your astonishing slide on the snow pack, I have not only professional and intellec- tual interest, but I also have personal interest, two beautiful granddaughters that live in that flood plain off the Sacramento River. Mr. BRANDT. Urge them to move. Mr. OBERSTAR. So I am going to pay very careful attention to the level of flood protection in the levees along the Sacramento and American Rivers. I don’t want those grandchildren standing on the roof of their homes waving white handkerchiefs, saying, Coast Guard, come rescue us. Mr. BRANDT. I hope not, and that is one of the challenges we face. At this point, the legislature is in the middle of the challenge of, how do we deal with those deep flood plains, how do we make sure people are out of harm’s way. The Governor for the first time actually a few weeks ago finally said, I am ready for a bill on flood plain land use to come to my desk, and I will sign it. That was a major change, and I think we will see flood plain land use to make

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 275

sure people in those deep flood plains—there are not more houses put in those deep flood plains and more people at risk. But that is a challenge. That is a huge challenge. You can understand the challenge of developers and builders taking on and saying, ‘‘we don’t want any of those restrictions.’’ But I think you will be seeing that in the next year. That is the kind of climate change issue we are confronting. The important part is we have taken that first step to actually say we have actually got to deal with this. Mr. OBERSTAR. Climate change is creeping north in my district in Minnesota, such that the resort operators and maple sugar gath- erers, including those of the Native American tribes, now don’t know when the flow will start from the maple trees because it is getting earlier and earlier in the season. And if your snow pack is melting in the Sierra Nevadas, I didn’t believe this, but my son said, well, you know, they get 20 to 30 feet and 40 feet of snow. I said, you mean inches. No, feet. So I went up to see that much snow. We used to have a lot of snow in Minnesota but nothing like that. But if it is down 27, 30 percent and more, doesn’t mean you are not getting the moisture; it means that the moisture will not be in frozen form and dissipate more gradually. It will mean huge runoff, and it will mean that that moisture will be lost to the lower reaches of California that depend upon it. Mr. BRANDT. That is right. Mr. OBERSTAR. That may mean more basins for retention, may mean more resources spent in controlling that water and protecting it for the future. That is a climate change issue we have to address. I will yield to the gentlewoman. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to address Natomis and some of those areas in the flood plain, because when I served in the State house, I would watch ships going by. And I was about 20 feet looking up. Well, the sad part is anything happens and any of those levees go, there is not going to be a developer that is going to sit there and say, I am responsible; I am putting money in it. And the people on councils who approved them may not be there when this happens, and then, of course, the insurance companies are going to turn around and say, sorry, you didn’t pay for this insurance. So who are the losers? The people. Who do they look to? The Fed- eral Government for the bailout. So it is a real, very important issue for those people living in those areas, and the fact that the developers, bless their hearts, they are trying to make money, which is okay, but unfortunately, the people who are going in there paying for something, should an emergency ever occur—good heav- ens, I hope not—it is going to be the taxpayers. Mr. BRANDT. The key piece is communicating that, and one issue that is in front of you, has been in front of you is this concept under FEMA of the 100-year flood plain. Many of these people who live in Natomis were told when they moved in there, oh, we are out of the flood plain. We are not in a flood plain because they have 100-year levees. That kind of certainty with climate change just isn’t go to work any more. They need to understand residual flood risk, and they are still at risk even if they have a 100-year flood levee. That changes as we learn more and with climate changes.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 276 But that is the challenge, trying to communicate that to everyone, that if you are going to live in that place, that is still a flood plain and you are still at risk. Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your extraordinary contributions. Thanks to all of you for being here and being so patient. We had no control over what happened today. If we could have, we would have made it different. Thank you, again. Committee adjourned. [Whereupon, at 7:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 277

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.159 278

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.160 279

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.161 280

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.162 281

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.163 282

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00320 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.164 283

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.165 284

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.166 285

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.167 286

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.168 287

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.169 288

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.170 289

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.171 290

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.172 291

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.173 292

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.174 293

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.175 294

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.176 295

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00333 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.177 296

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.178 297

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.179 298

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.180 299

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.181 300

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.182 301

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.183 302

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.184 303

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.185 304

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.186 305

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.187 306

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.188 307

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.189 308

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.190 309

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.191 310

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.192 311

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.193 312

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.194 313

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.195 314

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.196 315

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.197 316

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.198 317

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.199 318

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.200 319

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.201 320

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.202 321

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.203 322

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.204 323

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.205 324

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.206 325

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.207 326

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00364 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.208 327

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.209 328

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00366 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.210 329

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.211 330

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.212 331

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.213 332

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.214 333

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.215 334

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.216 335

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.217 336

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.218 337

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.219 338

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.220 339

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.221 340

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.222 341

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.223 342

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.224 343

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.225 344

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00382 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.226 345

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00383 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.227 346

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00384 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.228 347

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.229 348

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.230 349

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.231 350

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00388 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.232 351

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.233 352

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.234 353

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.235 354

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00392 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.236 355

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00393 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.237 356

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00394 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.238 357

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00395 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.239 358

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.240 359

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.241 360

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00398 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.242 361

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00399 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.243 362

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.244 363

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.245 364

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00402 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.246 365

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00403 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.247 366

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.248 367

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00405 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.249 368

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00406 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.250 369

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.251 370

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00408 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.252 371

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00409 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.253 372

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.254 373

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.255 374

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.256 375

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.257 376

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00414 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.258 377

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00415 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.259 378

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00416 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.260 379

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00417 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.261 380

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00418 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.262 381

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.263 382

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00420 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.264 383

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00421 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.265 384

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.266 385

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.267 386

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.268 387

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.269 388

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.270 389

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.271 390

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.272 391

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00429 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.273 392

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00430 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.274 393

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00431 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.275 394

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.276 395

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00433 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.277 396

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00434 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.278 397

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00435 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.279 398

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00436 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.280 399

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00437 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.281 400

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.282 401

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00439 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.283 402

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00440 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.284 403

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00441 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.285 404

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00442 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.286 405

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00443 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.287 406

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00444 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.288 407

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00445 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.289 408

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00446 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.290 409

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00447 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.291 410

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00448 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.292 411

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00449 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.293 412

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00450 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.294 413

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00451 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.295 414

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00452 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.296 415

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00453 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.297 416

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00454 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.298 417

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00455 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.299 418

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00456 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.300 419

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00457 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.301 420

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00458 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.302 421

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00459 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.303 422

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.304 423

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00461 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.305 424

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00462 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.306 425

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00463 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.307 426

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00464 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.308 427

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00465 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.309 428

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00466 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.310 429

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.311 430

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00468 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.312 431

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00469 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.313 432

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00470 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.314 433

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00471 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.315 434

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00472 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.316 435

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00473 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.317 436

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00474 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.318 437

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00475 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.319 438

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00476 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.320 439

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.321 440

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00478 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.322 441

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00479 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.323 442

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00480 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.324 443

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00481 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.325 444

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00482 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.326 445

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00483 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.327 446

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00484 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.328 447

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.329 448

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00486 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.330 449

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00487 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.331 450

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00488 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.332 451

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00489 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.333 452

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00490 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.334 453

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.335 454

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00492 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.336 455

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00493 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.337 456

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.338 457

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.339 458

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00496 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.340 459

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00497 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.341 460

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00498 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.342 461

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00499 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.343 462

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00500 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.344 463

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00501 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.345 464

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00502 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.346 465

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00503 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.347 466

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00504 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.348 467

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00505 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.349 468

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00506 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.350 469

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00507 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.351 470

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00508 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.352 471

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00509 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.353 472

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00510 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.354 473

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00511 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.355 474

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00512 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.356 475

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00513 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.357 476

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00514 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.358 477

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00515 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.359 478

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00516 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.360 479

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00517 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.361 480

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00518 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.362 481

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00519 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.363 482

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00520 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.364 483

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00521 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.365 484

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00522 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.366 485

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.367 486

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00524 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.368 487

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00525 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.369 488

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00526 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.370 489

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00527 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.371 490

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00528 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.372 491

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00529 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.373 492

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00530 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.374 493

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Feb 22, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00531 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\35926 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON 35926.375